ec 232 198 author stephens, susan a.; and othersdocument resume ed 324 853. ec 232 198 author...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 324 853. EC 232 198

AUTHOR Stephens, Susan A.; And Others

TITLE The Study of Programs of Instruction for HandicappeCChildren and Youth in Day and R dential Facilities.

Volume III. State Education Agency Procedures andEducational Practice at Separate Facilities forStudents with Handicaps.

INSTITUTION Decision Resources Corp., Washington, DC.;Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, N.J.;Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis.; Temple Univ.,Philadelphia, Pa. Inst. for Survey Research.

SPONS AGENCY Srsecial Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,

DC.

PUB DATE 31 Jan 90'

CONTRACT 300-85-0190NOTE 372p.; For the other volumes in this study, see EC

232 196-200.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE NF01/PC15 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Change Agents; *Day Programs; *Disabilities;

Educational Change; Educational Improvement;*Educational Practices; Elementary SecondaryAucation; *Government Role; Government SchoolRelationship; National Surveys; Pr,gram Improvement;Residential Institutions; *Residential Programs;Special Education; Special Schools; *StateDepartments of Education

ABSTRACTThe third of five volumes of a study of instructional

programs for handicapped children and youth in separate day care andresidential facilities, this document presents the results of ananalysis of State education agency (SEA) procedures and the impact ofthese procedures on special education services and practices withinthe targeted facilities. The analysis draws upon a variety ofsources, including case studies of e'ght states (California,Connecticut, Floride, Illinois, Loutdiana, New Jersey, Ohio and SouthCerolina), a survey of 30 SEA special education divisions, a surveyof 1,941 separate facilities, and case studies of 24 separatefacilities from the case study states. Part 1 of the report focuseson the economic and educational context and the strue-ure of statespecial education systems. Part 2 deals with SEA procedures forspecial education funding, standards, monitoring, technicalassistance, in-service training, program development, anddissemination activities. Part 3 discusses factors affectingeducational practice at separate facilities, specifically: changes instudent population and mission; factors affecting programs, such asindividualized education and transition plans, changes in life skillsand vocational education, increased use of treatment and behavioralgoals in educational programming, and program evaluation; factorsaffecting facility staffing, such as staff development and staffevaluation; and factors affecting student integration and parentalinvolvement. Three technical appendices review the study methodology,

And 15 references are included. (JDD)

US. DEMRTMENT OF EDUCAIIONOffice <A Educational Ropeatch and lancoomment

EDU9AIIONM. RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

're Tem document has biers rftwoducee esreceived trom th parson Or OrganKabOftoriginating a

O Mnor champs nava twin made to Immo

reprOduCtion WSW/

Points ot view or oons stated due dankmint do not rimestanlyOERl domain or OCMOY

THE STUDY OF PROGRAMS OF INSMUCTIONFOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND YOUTHIN DAY AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

VOLUME III:STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES

AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE AT SEPARATEFACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

f

THE STUDY OF PROGRAMS OF INSTRUCTIONFOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND YOUTHIN DAY AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

VOLUME III:STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES

AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE AT SEPARATEFACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

January 31, 1990

Authors:

Susan A. StephensMarsha BrauenFran O'ReillyJoy Gianolio

with K. Charlie Lakin and Steven Rioux

Prepared for:

Department of EducationOffice of Special EducationPrograms

Mary C. Switzer Building330 C Street, S. W.Washington, D.C. 20202

Project Officer:Susan Thompson-Hoffman

Prepared by:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.P.O. Box 2393Princeton, N.J. 08543-2393

Principal Investigators:Susan A. StephensK. Charlie Lakin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1983 and 1986 Amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA)directed the U.S. Secretary of Education to report to Congress on "an analysis and evaluationof the effectiveness of procedures undertaken by each State education agency, local educationagency, and intermediate educational unit to improve programs of instruction for handicappedchildren and youth in day and residential facilities." The Study of Programs of Instruction forHandicapped Children and Youth in Day and Residential Facilities was conducted in responseto that requirement.

There were four specific goals identified for the Study of Programs of Instruction forHandicapped Children and Youth in Day and Residential Facilities:

o To provide nationally representative estimates of the current status ofeducation afforded to handicapped children and youth in separate facilities

o To describe changes in the population and services of separate facilities sincethe passage of P.L. 94-142

o To describe procedures used by State educational agencies (SEAs) toimprove the instructional programs at separate day and residential facilities

o To describe the influence of State procedures on changes in facility practice,as well as the influence of such other factors as the procedures of local andintermediate education agencies

The following design was implemented to meet these goals:

o A survey of separate day and residential facilities, to provide nationallyrepresent.Zive estimates of the current status of education afforded tohandicapped children and youth in these facilities and to obtain retrospectivereports of change

o A comparison of current survey results with certain findings from the 1978-79 OCR survey for those facilities surveyed in both, to describe changes inthe population and services of those facilities

r0

:

o A survey of all fifty States on the procedures used by the State educationagencies to affect educational services at separate day and residentialfacilities, so describe the procedures currently in use

o Case studies of selected facilities within the case study States, to describe theinfluence of State procedures on facility practices and to identify theinfluence of other factors on separate facilities

This volume presents the results of the analysis of State education agency (SEA)procedures and the impact of these procedures and other factors on special education servicesand practices within separate facilities. The analysis draws upon a variety of sources, includingcase studies of eight States, a nationwide Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, the Surveyof Separate Facilities (reported in detail in Volume II), and case studies of twenty-four separatefacilities from within the case study States. The States selected for case studies were California,Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Carolina. Three separatefacilities were selected in each State and included day and residential facilities operated by Stateand local public agencies and private facilities. All the case study facilities served students withmental retardation, sensory impairments, or emotional disturbance, the three handicappingconditions most often served in separate facilities.

For the purposes of this study, separate facilities were defined as any residential or day,wogram exclusively serving handir.apped persons in buildings physically separate from programsfor non-handicapped age peers, at which special education services arc provided during the usualschool day. Separate facilities may be operated by local districts or intermediate units, by Stateagencies, or by private organizations. The special education servica may he provided by theoperating agency or organization, or by another agency or organization. Students may be placedin separate facilities, particularly residential facilities, primarily for reasons other than to receivespecial education services (for example, to receive medical or psychological services or long-termcars). Correctional facilities and facilities such as hospitals, diagnostic centers, or treatmentfaulities with average lengths of stay of less tban 30 days were not considered to be separatefacilities for the purposes of this study.

\

6

M.

Special Education'System andthe Placement of Students with Handicaps

Across the States

As mandated by the requirements of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped ChildrenAct (P.L. 94-142), all States have put into place procedures to identify and provide educationalservices to school-age residents who have physical, emotional, or cognitive impairments thatrequire specially designed instruction or related services in order to benefit fully from theeducational process. Since the passage of P.L. 94-142, the proportion of the schooi-agepopulation identified as hand:capped has increased, as has the total number of students receivingspecial education services. Across the nation, the proportion of the resident population ages 3through 21 who are served in the special education system increased from 5 percent in the 1976-77 school year to 6.5 percent in 1986-87. The total number of handicapped students identifiedand reported by the States to the U.S. Department of Education increased between 1976-77 and1q87-88 from 3,708,601 to 4,494,280 students. Howmr, the proportion of handicapped studentsserved in separate facilities over the period has generally remained stable; in both 1976-77 and1986-87 the proportion across all age groups was about 6 percent. There is considerable State-by-State variation in these proportions, however. The case study States range from 3.3 to 12.7percent of handicapped students served in separate facilities in 1986-87.

In most States, a broad range of agencies, both public and private, are involved in theprovision of services, educational and/or residential, in separate facilities. In all States, localschool districts line primary responsibility for special education, and in twenty-nine States localdistricts were reported to operate at least some separate facilities, almost all day programs.Some (fifteen) States also provide mechanisms for joint agreements among districts or forregional units (for example, at the county level) to operate separate facilities as well. In twenty-five States, the State education agency (SEA) provides direct services to students with handicapsthrough the operation of separate facilities, most often residential schools for students withhearing or visual impairments. In all States there is one or more State agencies other than theSEA involved in operating separate residential facilities for persons with handicaps; in general,the operating agency also provides the educational program for school-age residents, althoughin some States that responsibility has been or is being transferred to local districts orintermediate units. Private schools for students with handicaps offer day and residentialprograms to students placed there by the local education agencies (LEAs) in all but eight States.

All States have a subunit (division, department, or bureau) within the State educationagency with primary responsibility for special education programs. In most States (45 out of 50)the SEA special education division is organized primarily by function, although many also assignstaff to geographic regions of the State or use specialists in special education programs forstudents with particulpr handicapping conditions. The major activities conducted out of the SEAspecial education divisions incluect administrative activities such as planning and grantsmanagement (an estimated median of 18 percent of staff time across the States), compliancemonitoring (19 percent of staff time), and technical assistance, program development, anddissemination (42 percent of staff time). Other activities can include interagency liaison withother State agencies, due process and mediation, and student evaluation.

4.,

SEA PROCEDURES

States have available a number of procedures to influence special education programs andinstructional practices, with the ultimate aim of improving the education provided to studentswith handicaps in all settings, including separate facilities. These procedures include:

o Funding (the level and distribution of entitlement and discretionaryor specialpurpose grants)

o Standards (in such areas as staff certification, student-staff ratios, class size,length of school day and year, and curricula or graduation requirements)

o Monitoring (in terms of content or focus, preparation and follow-upactivities, and sanctions or assistance associated with SEA review of facilityrecords and procedures)

o Technical assistance and training (yia seminars or workshops and consultationwith individual facilities)

o Program development and dissemination (development, adaptation, and/orthe distribution of curricula, instructional materials, procedural manuals, orinformation on state-of-the-art practices)

Funding

In almost every State, Federal, State, and local funds are combined to support the costsof special education and related services provided to students with handicaps. State specialeducation PInding programs have several components. The principal component is the formulaused to distribute State funds to districts to pay for the costs of students' educational programs.This formula, and variations in the formula or separate mechanisms used to fund students orprograms in separate facilities, influence primarily placement patterns rather than the educationalprograms at the facilities. That is, incentives or disincentives may exist for educationdlplacements in out-of-district facilities, whether operated by other districts or intermediate units,State agencies, or private organizations, depending upon how districts are reimbursed and forwhich types of placements districts are financially responsible.

There are five general funding approaches currently used by States to distribute Statefunds to local districts:

(1) Flat grant per teacher or classroom unit

(2) Percentage or excess cost

(3)

(4)

(5)

Percentage of teacher/personnel salaries

Weighted pupil formula

Weighted teacher/classroom unit formula

The weighted pupil formula is used by the largest number of States (19); 12 States tit ;a percentage or excess cost reimbursement formula; and 10 use a flat grant formula. Statedirectors of special education reported that pupil weighting formulas have the potential ofencouraging student placements in higher reimbursement categories, including separate facilitiesif these placements are reimbursed at higher rates than other types of placements. Percentageor excess cost formulas allow districts to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs of educatingstudents with handicaps. These formulas generally do not distinguish among types of placementsfor reimbursement purposes. Thus, districts would be able to receive equivalent reimbursementunder such a formula for a high-cost program operated by the district as for similar programsprovided in State, private, or other separate facilities. Flat grant formulas were not reported bythemselves to encou.age the use of separate facilities; however, this formula is oftenaccompanied Ly other funding provisions for students served outside the district, which maycreate an incentive for out-of-district placements if the State pays a higher share of suchplacements than for programs operated by the districts.

In many cases, the funding mechanism used by the State to distribute funds to localdistricts is not used to fund out-of-district student placements. There are five approaches usedby States to fund such placements:

o Direct State appropriation to the facility

o Direct payment by the SEA to the facility, using the same formula used todistribute funds for LEA programs

o Direct payment by the LEA to the facility, with SEA reimbursement to theLEA using the same formula used to distribute funds for LEA programs

o Direct payment by the LEA to the facility, with SEA reimbursement to theLEA using a different formula than the one used to distribute funds forLEA programs

o Payment to the facility by a non-education agency

HI.v

The approaches used to fund out-of-district placements vary considerably both acrossplacements within States and across States. However, the potential impact of any method forpaying for the educational costs of out-of-district placements is confounded by the fact thatmany of such placements are made for non-educational purposes, and by agencies other than theState or local education agencies.

Most States that operate intermediate education unit or regional programs fundplacements in these programs using the same formula used to fund district programs, generallywith the placing district paying tuition to the intermediate or regional program and receivingreimbursement from the State. The vast majority of SEA-operated residential facilities receivedirect State appropriations for their operation, and districts pay little or nothing of theeducational costs of students placed in thee acilities. In almost every State, at least one Stateager,y other than the SEA operates a separate residential facility. The most common methodused for funding residential placements in othe: State agency programs is for the placing agencyto be responsible for residential costs, while the placing district or the SEA pays for theeducational costs. The greatest variability in funding methods across the States pertains toapproaches for funding private school placements. In some States, no State special educationfunding is provided for private school placements. The most common approach used to fundprivate placements is the direct payment of tuition by the placing district using the same or adifferent formula as is used to fund district programs. The formula can leave districts withgreater costs for private school placements than for most in-district progams, thus serving as adisincentive to nonpublic school placement. On the other hand, in some States, districts canreceive an equdl or greater reimbursement for private school compared with local districtplacements.

Overall, the methods used by the States to fund within and out-of-district special educationplacements are not designed to impact on the programs offered by separate facilities. Rather,the major effect of State funding procedures, reported by State directors of special education,stems from their potential to influence the use of separate facilities through the operation ofincentives and disincentives. In all cases, individual placement decisions are based on assessedneeds of students for particular program services, with the provider selected that can best meetthose needs. In selecting among potential providers, districts were reported to consider theimpact of State funding formula for particular placement options on their overall costs.

Federal funds are a source of funds frequently called upon by the States in efforts toimprove programs, through funds provided under Part B of the Education of the HandicappedAct and Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (State Operated Programs).A major use of EHA-B set-aside funds is the funding of special education resource or materialscenters and technical assistance networks, while Chapter 1 funds are generally targeted towardsupplementing personnel resources.

10

Standards and Monitoring

AK States establish educational standards in the areas of staff certification and programcontent, to affect the quality of special education programs. These standards provide the contextin which all education programs must operate within a State, including special educationprograms at separate facilities. Separate facilities are generally required to conform to the samestandards for staff qualifications and program content as the special education programs thatoperate in local public schools. Thus, educational standards by themselves do not provide Stateswith a unique tool for improving educational programs at separate facilities.

Federal regulations require that SEAs monitor all educational programs within the Stateto ensure that all providers comply with Federal and State provisions and guarantee a freeappropriate public education for all students with handicaps. The Federal requirementsemphasize compliance with procedures more than program content, and as fi result themonitoring systems designed by the States are quite similar. The monitoring of all public agencyprograms generally consists of three phases: data collection and review of documuntary material,on-site validation and review of records (including samples of students), and reporting andfollow-up. The greatest variation across States occurs in the last phase, in that some States usethe reporting and follow-up phase to provide extensive technical assistance geared towardprogram improvement. There is also considerable variation across the States in whether privateschool approval processes focus on the unique characteristics of the special education programand whether private facilities are monitored independently or in conjunction with LEAmonitoring.

Virtually all States reported that monitorhig had its primary impact on ensuring thatspecial education programs meet minimum Federal and State regulations, and that compliancereviews provide opportunities to encourage program improvements. The format and content ofmonitoring instruments and procedures and the standards used in monitoring were cited as themost important factors in influencing the effectiveness of compliance monitoring systems. Theauthority to monitor special education programs operated by other State agencies was seen asa particularly powerful tool to effect change at those facilities. About half the States reportedthat monitoring focused increasingly on program content and instructional issues. Statesgenerally also reported that compliance monitoring was an effective method for identifying

technical assistance needs for future dissemination and program development efforts.

Technical Assistance. In-Service Training. Program Development.and Dissemination

A traditional role of State education agencies has been to provide local educ,.tion agencieswith information and assistance in maintaining and upgrading staff expertise and skills and inimproving instructional programs, approaches, and materials. EHA mandated that States conductsystematic and regular assessment of the needs for program improvement and staff developmentand formulate State-wide plans to address those needs. States also continue to engage in avariety of other activities designed to assist special education providers in improving services

delivered to handicapped students.

III.vii

1 1

All States provide technical assistance and staff training services to special educationproviders through the SEA and generally also through other State agencies involved in theoperation of separate facilities. Staff at all sr-vial education programs in a State have access toSEA staff and to special education resource/materials centers, although it . , generally notedthat the assistsme and training provided through these mechanisms were generally of greaterrelevance to staff at local districts than to staff at separate facilities, because the nature ofstudent needs and programmatic LULU'S differs between these two types of irograms.

However, in some States, SEA staff and resource/materials centers are more specializedthaii in others and focus on programmatic issues associated with low-incidence and severehandicaps of more relevance to separate facilities. Also, a direct and routinized link betweenmonitoring and technical assistance, when separate facilities are monitored directly by SEAspecial education staff, was also reported to be an effective method for focusing on programimp rov 'meat issues.

Program development is a resource-intensive activity and one that has been lessconsistently emphasized s a major part the activities of SEA special education divisions.Resource/materials centers were reported c,.. be the primacy producers of specialized instructionalmaterials. To date, States appear to have focused their program development efforts most oftenon identification and evaluation issues and on designing programs to serve severely impairedstudents and those with low-incidence handicaps. More extensive involvement in programdevelopment appears to be associated with the development of Statewide curriculumrequirements and the extension of these requirements to special eaucation.

Dissemination of state-of-the-art information on special education regulations, procedures,instructional approaches, and materials is a mandated activity for SEAs under P.L. 94-142. InStates where resource/materials centers have major responsibility br technical assistance andtraining, they also usually have responsibility for dissemination. Workshops and conferences arethe single most important vehicle for the direct involvement of SEA special educatk n divisionsin dissemination. Workshops and conferences are typically used for transferring information onboth instructional and procaural or regulatory issues. Staff at separate facilities are notifiedof these events, but participation was reported to vary greatly according to the topic underdiscussion.

Changes in Student Ponutationsand Mission at Separate Facilitfes

The numbers and characteristics of students served in separate facilities since theimplementation of P.L. 94-142 have changed substantially. Among ddy facilities, publiclyoperated separate programs have increased in size, while private programs have had a slightdecrease. Among residential facilities, the opposite is true. Students with mild or moderatemental retardation are a smaller proportion of students in separate facilitim than ir. .he past,while students with more severe mental retardation and emotional disturbance form larger

1 2

!

components of the population of separate schools. Separate day schoes have expanded theirservices to the birth through five-year age range with early intervention and pre-school programs,while residential facilities serve a larger proportion of older students (ages 18 through 21) thanpreviously.

The major factor associated with these changes in student populations at separate facilitieswas a change in the orientation and services of other providers in the special education system,particularly an increased capacity and willingness to serve students with handicaps among localeducational agencies. This factor was associated with the increased severity of impairmentnoted among students now enrolled in separate facilities. The deinstitutionalization movementaffected population shifts at smaller, usually day, programs. The increased need for residentialprograms for students with emotional, behavioral, and familial problems has led to an increasein students at some separate facilities, often placed by non-education agencies for treatmentrather than special education.

The response of separate facilities to changing student pop ti:. s has been varied, butincludes the expansion of services to students with significant secondary handicaps and to studentswith handicaps not previously served by the facility. A number of separate facilities have alsoexpanded their efforts to share staff experience, technological expertise, and instructionalmaterials with local educators, parents, and other service providers.

Changes in Educational Practiceat Separate Facilities

and Factors Affecting Changes

This study used both national survey and case study data to examine changes in severalareas of educational practice at separate facilities:

o Programs and methods of instruction, including:

Transition planning

Vocational and life skills training

Integration of therapy and related services into educicionalprogramming

Program evaluation

1 3

-4

-,

o Staffmg, incluc g:

- Numbers and types of staff

- Staff development activities

- Staff evaluation

o Opportunities for student interaction with nonhandicapped persons

o Oppoitunities for parents to become involved in th.tir child's education

Prcrrams of Instruction

Individualized education plans have become almost universal among separate facilitiesunder the requirements in P.L. 94442. Transition plans are more often developed now as well,although they are not as prevalent as IEPs. Most formal transition planning focuses on thetransition between the educational system and the adultworld and includes the development notonly of student skills and behaviors but also of the necessary links with adult service providers,residential settings, and employment opportunities. State requirements for transition plans,facility initiative in responding to the changing needs of more severely impaired students, andtechnical assistance provided by the SEA special education division were the most frequentlymentioned factors in the development of transition plans and programs.

The most frequently mentioned change in educational programming at separate facilitieswas an increased emphasis on vocational and community living preparation and training. Factorsassociated most often with this increase in emphasis were changes in the characteristics of thestudent population and their needs, with information and training provided by State specialeducation division staff or resource/materials centers. Some separate facilities were able to usespecial funds to support new or innovative programs in this area.

The other major area of change in educational programs at separate facilities was theincrease in the use of therapy and related services associated with the integration of treatmentand behavior modification goals into educational programming. The factor associated with thesechanges was generally the increase in the severity of impairment and the prevalence of m.,Itiplehandicapping conditions among the students at separate facilities.

There were few substantive chanees in program evaluation activities at separate farilitiessince 1975.

1 4

Staffing

Most separate facilities report that instructional staff have more appropriate training thanprior to 1975 and that more staff are certified or license.d. State certification standards and theirapplication across the special education system were credited with this change, although theavailability of technical assistance and training provided by the SEA special education divisionswas also a factor in increasing the quality of staff.

Associated with changes in student needs and programmatic changes to address thoseneeds, the composition of staffs at separate facilities has also changed. A substantial proportionof separate facilities have more vocational instructors, transition specialists, and related servicespersonnel than in the past.

However, many separate facilities find it difficult to recruit and retain appropriate staff fortheir programs, partiwlarly related-services staff (such as occupational, physical, and speechtherapists and nurses), as well as teachers for the emotionally disturbed and teachers certified formore than one handicapping condition or for special education and another area of education(such as vocational education). In some cases, State certification requirements have made itharder to find staff, while competition for staff and differential salaries among types ofeducational settings have contributed to the problems of recruitment, while staff burnoutassociated with a greater severity of student impairments was the factor associated with problemsin staff retention.

The overall student-staff ratio at separate facilities has not changed substantially since1975.

The major changes in staff development were reported to be a shift in focus fromcompliance procedures to instructional approachm, an increase in the number of opportunitiesto tiarticipate in workshops or classes, and a closer relationship between staff development andstudent and staff needs. SEA-provided or supported technical assistance and informationdissemination activities were noted most frequently as a factor associated with these changes instaff development.

Staff evaluation activities are regularly conducted at most separate facilities and were notreported to have changed ubstantially since 1975.

Opportunities for Student Intearation and Parental T.nvolvement

Most students at separate facilities do not interact with non-handicapped personsextensively as part of programs organized by the facility. However, most separate facilitiesregularly provide opportunities for some student involvement with nonhandicapped peers andwith the communit7 in which the facility is located. Over half of separate facilities reportedincreases in opportunities for student interaction with nonhandicapped peers--a change associated

15

, kr \ -

with general societal trends in the acceptance of persons with handicaps, with programming thatfocuses on practical life skills and experiential learning, and with the dissemination of modelsfor community involvement by the SEA.

Parental involvement in their children's educational programs has increased signiiicar.tlysince the passage of P.L. 94-142, since it mandates parents' participation in placement andprogram decisions. However, separate facilities reported that parental involvement in otheraspects of students' educational careers and in parent support activh:cs sl onsored by the facilitywere generally only moderate at best. Facilities had increas,4,, their activities that involve parentsand staff contact with parents, as part of continued response to EllA requirements and on-staffinitiative.

Patterns of the Effects of SEA Procedureson Chan es at Se arate Facilities

There is some variation in the reports of how SEA procedures have affected educationalpractices at separate facilities. In general, public facilities operated by State and local agencieswere more likely to report the effectg of SEA standards on changes in facility practices.Differences in the effects of SEA funding or monitoring procedures between public and privatefacilities were minor. Separate facilities operated by local or regional public entities gave morecredit to SEA-provided or funded technical assistance and dissemination activities for changesin their programs than did State-operated or private facilities. This confirms reports by SEAspecial education division staff that these SEA activities are generally oriented toward localdistrict special educa:ion programs.

There was also some difference in the effects of SEA procedures across the eight casestudy States. State standards were generally consiztently reported across the States. However,facilities in Ohio and Illinois more frequently than other States mentioned monitoring as a factorin changes in educational practice, perhaps associated with the provision of technical assistanceand follow-up to monitoring. The technical assistance, training, program development, anddissemination activities of the SEA or of the SEA resource/materials centers were mentionedmost frequently as factors associated with changes in Ohio. The close link between monitoringand technical assistance for program improvements and the extensive and active special educationresource/materials network in that State may be the critical elements.

Overall, many if not most of the changes in educational practice at separate facilities aredirectly related to the changes in the number and characteristics of the students served at thosefacilities, particularly increases in the severity of impairments and the prevalence of multiple andsecondary handicaps. Changes in staffmg, staff development, program content, and instructionalapproaches were all reported to be closely related to changes in the student population and tothe initiatives of facility leadership and staff in iesponding to student needs.

1 6

,

The procedures implemented by State educational agencies were also frequently mentionedas factors in the changes at separate facilities. The implementation of State standards wasmentioned by many facilities I : having an impact on staffing and staff development,individualized education and transition plans, and parental involvement.

The States' special education system for technical assistance, training, programdevelopment, aLl dissemination was also frequently mentioned as a factor in changcs at separatefacilities, particularly in staff development activities and the development of life skills andtransition programs.

Neither monitoring nor funding was mentioned frequently as a factor that affects changesin educational practice at separate facilities. The focus a rocnitoring has been on compliancerather than program improvement issues, although this appears to be changing, and while fundinglevels are an important parameter within which facilities must operate, there were not manyspecific funding initiatives available to support and sustain program improvements at separatefacilities.

17

CONTENTS

Chapter

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART ONE: DESIGN AND CCMTEXT

INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN

A. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OVERALL DESIGNB. DESIGN Cf THE STATE-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION EFFORT

1. Data Needs for State-Level Case Study and Surveyof SEA Special Education Divisions

2. Selection and Recruitment of Case Study States3. State-Level Case Study Protocol and Procedures

1

3

7

81322

C. DESIGN OF THE FACILITY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION EFFORT . . . . 27

1. Information Needs for the Facility Case StudyComponent 28

2. Selection of Facilities 29

3. Facility-Level Case Study Protocol and Procedures . . . 33

II. STATE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT 37

A. ECONOMIC CONTEXT 38B. STUDENT POPULATION 42C. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT 47

1. General Education Refoem 472. Special Education Legislation 483. Advocacy Group Action and Court Cases 55

D. SUMMARY 60

III. STRUCTURE OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS 63

A. PATTERNS OF SEPARATE FACILITY USE . . . . . . 63

B. PUBLIC AGENCIES PROVIDING SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES . . . . 67

1. Local Public Agency Responsibilities in SpecialEducation 67

2. Separate Facilities Operated by the State EducationAgency 72

3. Other State Agencies Operating Separate Facilities . . . 73

4. Interagency Cooperation 75

5. Summary 77

C. STATE DIVISIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION 81

XV

CONTENTS (continued)

ChapterEMI

PART TWO: STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES

I. SEA PROCEDURES: SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING 87

A. STATE FUNDING PROCEDURES87

1. Funding of LEA Placements88

2. Funding of Out-of-District Placements 102

B. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS113

1. State Use of EHA-B Funds114

2. Use of Chapter 1 of ESEA (SOP) Funds 118

C. SUMMARY119

II. SEA PROCEDURES: SPECIAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AND MONITORINGPROCEDURES

123

A. STANDARDS124

1. Staff Certification Standards 1252. Program Standards

1273. Summary

130

B. COMPLIANCE MONITORING132

1. General Mbnitoring Process 1332. Monitoring of Private Schools 1483. Summary

151

III. SEA PROCEDURES: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, IN-SERVICE TRAINING,PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES 155

A. PLANNING FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT . . . . . 156B. SEA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INSERVICE TRAINING 159

1. Role of the SEA in Coordinating and SupportingTechnical Assistance and Training 160

2. Link Between Mbnitoring and Technical Assistance/Training

1633. Role of Resource/Materials Centers 1634. Role of Other State, Regional, or Local Entities in

Providing Technical Assistance and Training 1665. Summary 168

xvi


Chapter

PART TWO (continued)

III. (continued)

C. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 170D. DISSEMINATION 174E. SUMMARY 179

IV. SUMARY OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCEDURES 183

A. STATE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT 183B. STRUCTURE OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS 184C. SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING 186D. SPECIAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING . . 186E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, IN-SERVICE TRAINING, PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT, AND DISSEMINATION 188F. SUMMARY 189

PART THREE: FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICEAT SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

I. CHANGES IN STUDENT POPULATION ANC MISSION AT SEPARATEFACILITIES 195

A. CHANGES IN THE NOMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED AT SEPARATEFACILITIES. . . . . . . . . ........ . . 196

B. CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HANDICAPPING CONDITIONSPMONG STUDENTS 198

C. CHANGES IN SEVERITY OF IMPAIRMENT AMONG STUDENTS ATSEPARATEFACILITIES 201

D. CHANGES IN OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS ATSEPARATE FACILITIES 203

E. CHANGES IN FACILITY MISSION 206F. SUMMARY 207

II. FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY PROGRAMS AND METHODS CfINSTRUCTION

A. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION AND TRANSITION PLANS

211

211

1. Transition Planning 2192. Transition Programs 222

3. Summary 226

xvii

20

CONTEW1S (continued)

Chanter

PART THREE (continued)

CHANGES IN LIFE SKILLS AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

1. Life Skills Education2. Vocational Education

INCREASED USE OF TREATMENT AND BEHAVIORAL GOALS INEDUCATIONAL PROGRANMINGPROGRAM EVALUATION

&ft

226

227229

231233

II. (continued)

B.

C.

D.

1. Current Program Evaluation Activities 2332. Changes in Program Evaluation 2383. Summary 240

III. FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY STAFFING 243

A. NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FACILITY STAFF 244

1. Current Staffing Patterns 2442. Changes in Staffing Patterns 2533. Summary 259

B. STAFF DEVELOPMENT 260

1. Current Staff Development 2602. Changes in Staff Development 2623. Summary 267

C. STAFF EVALUATION 267

1. Current Staff Evaluation 2682. Changes in Staff Evaluation 2703. Summary

271

D. SUMMARY 272

IV. FACTORS AFFECTIC STUDENT INTEGRATION AND PARENTALINVCCVENENT

275

A. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERACTION WITH NONHANDICAPPEDPEERS

275

1. Off-Campus Educational or Developmental Programs . . . . 2762. Non-Instructional Activities 2783. Changes in Opportunities for Student Interaction . . . . 2794. Summary 283

xviii

k.21



IV. (continued)

B. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 284

1. Changes in Level of Parental Involvement 2872. Changes in Parent-Oriented Activities/Programs 2893. Summary 291

V. SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING EDUMIONAL PRACTICE ATSEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS 293

A. MAJOR CHANGES REPORTED IN FACILITY PRACTICES 294

1. Programs and Methods of Instruction 2942. Staffing 1953. Opportunities for Student In.araction and Parental

Involvement 297

B. VARIATION IN THE EFFECT OF SEA PROCEDURES ON FACILITYPRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

C. SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY CHANGE 299

TECHNICAL APPENDIX III.A: DATA USED IN SELECTION OFSTATES FOR CASE STUDY 303

A. ANALYSES OF STATE USE OF SEPARATE FACILITIES 303

B. ANALYSIS BY HANDICAP GROUP OF PLACEMENT PATTERNS INSEPARA 7 FACILITIES 304

TECHNICAL APPENDIX STATE SITE VISIT PROTOCOLOUTLINE AND PROCEDURES 315

TECHNICAL APPENDIX III.C: FACILITY SITE VISIT PROTOCOLOUTLINE AND PROCEDURES 319

REFERENCES 325

xix

22

Table,

TABLES

PART ONE: DESIGN AND CONTEXT

Eta

TABLE 1.2 DATA CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS FOR SURVEY OF SEASPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISIONS 14

TABLE 1.3 STATES RATED AS "HIGH" OR "LOP" FOR USE OFSEPARATE SETTINGS DURING 1983-b4 AND FOR CHANGESBETWEEN 1976-77 AND 1983-84 IN USE OF SEPARATESETTINGS FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS 18

TABLE 1.4 STATE PLACEMENT PATTERNS FOR MAJOR HANDICAPGROUPS FOR THE 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR 20

TABLE 1.5 SUMMARY INFORMATION ON STATES SELECTED FOR CASESTUDY 23

TABLE 1.6 ESTIMATES OF NUMBER OF SEPARATE FACILITIES INNATION, BY OPERATOR, TYPE OF PROGRAM ANDPRIMARY HANDICAPPING CONDITION SERVED 30

TABLE 1.7 DISTRIBUTION OF SEPARATE FACILITIES SELECTED FORCASE STUDY

TABLE 11.1 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME 39

TABLE 11.2 EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL 40

TABLE 11.3 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAND RELATED SERVICES 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR . . . . . 41

TABLE 11.4 ESTIMATED RESIDENT POPULATION AGE 3 THROUGH 21 . . . 44

TABLE 11.5 NUMBER OF .CHILDREN SERVED AS HANDICAPPED ANDTOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION AGE 3 THROUGH 21 45

TABLE 11.6 ENTITLEMENT AGE RANGES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION . . . 46

TABLE 11.7 IMPACT OF GROUPS ON CHANGES IN PLACEMENTS INSEPARATE FACILITIES, AS REPORTED BY SEA SPECIALEDUCATION DIVISIONS 57

TABLE 11.8 IMPACT OF GROUPS ON IMPROVEMENTS IN SEPARATEFACILITIES, AS REPORTED BY SEA SPECIALEDUCATION DIVISIONS

XX

23

59

TABLES (continued)

JAIL Paae

TABLE 11.9

PART 1 (continued)

DISTRIBUTION OF CASE STUDY STATES ON ECONOMICAND STUDENT POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 61

TABLE 111.1 PERCENT OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS SERVED IN ALLSEPARATE DAY AND RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS BYHANDICAPPING CONDITION 66

TABLE 111.2 SEA AND OTHER STATE AGENCY INVOLVEMENT INPROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN SEPARATEFACILITIES IN CASE STUDY STATES 78

TABLE 111.3 PERCENT OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISIONSTAFF TIME BY FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 83

TABLE 111.4 MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES OF DIVISIONSOF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CASE STUDY STATES 85

PART TWO: STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCL 1ES

TABLE 1.1 TYPES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE FORMULAS . . . 90

TABLE 1.2 WEIGHTING FACTORS USED BY CASE STUDY STATESUSING WEIGHTED PUPIL FORMULAS FOR OISTRIBUTINGSTATE SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDS 97

TABLE 1.3 FUNDING FORMULA USED TO DISTRIBUTE SPECIALEDUCATION FUNDS TO LEAS 101

TABLE 1.4 ALLOCATION OF STATE'S FEDERAL GRANT UNDER EHA-BIN 1987-88 SCHOOL YEAR 115

TABLE 1.5 FUNDING OF PLACEMENTS AT NON-LEA OPERATEDFACILITIES IN CASE STUDY STATES 120

TABLE 11.1 DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDS BETWEEN LEA SPECIALEDUCATION PROGRAMS AND ALL OTHEk PROGRAMS 131

TABLE 11.2 FREQUENCY OF ON-SITE MONITORING FCt PUBLICSPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS AMONG CASE STUDYSTATES, BY TYPE OF PROGRAM MONITORED 140

TABLE 11.3 EXISTENCE AND FREQUENCY OF OFF-SITE REVIEWS INMONITORING PROCESS 142

xxi

4

TABLES (continued)

Table

PART TWO (continued)

TABLE 11.4 SEA PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MONITORING 143

TABLE 11.5 HOW SPECIAL EDUCATION MONITORING IS CONDUCTEDIN RELATION TO OTHER SEA MONITORING ACTIVITIES . . . 146

TABLE 11.6

TABLE 111.1

TABLE 111.2

TABLE 111.3

TABLE IV.1

MONITORING OF PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAMS ORFACILITIES 149

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG CASE STUDY STATES INTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING 170

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG CASE STUDY STATES INPROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 175

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG CASE STUDY STATES INDISSEMINATION 180

DISTRIBUTION OF CASE STUDY STATES ON FACTORSPOTENTIALLY IMPORTANT 14 AFFECTING PROGRAMIMPROVEMENT IN SEPARATE FACILITIES

PART THREE: FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICEAT SEPARATZ FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

189

TABLE 1.1 CHANGES IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED IN SEPARATEFACILITIES SURVEYED IN 1979 AND 1988 197

TABLE 1.2 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PRIMARY HANDICAPPINGCONDITION AT SEPARATE FACILITIES SURVEYED IN1979 AND 1988 199

TABLE 1.3 REPORTED CHANGE IN SEVERITY OF IMPAIRMENT OFSTUDENT POPULATIONS OF SEPARATE SCHOOLS OPERATINGIN 1976 AND 1988 202

TABLE 1.4 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY GENDER AND RACE ORETHNICITY AT SEPARATE FACILITIES SURVEYED IN 1979AND 1988 204

TABLE 1.5 AVERAGE PERCENT INCREASE OR DECREASE INPROPORTION OF STUDENTS BY AGE IN SEPARATE SCHOOLSOPERATING IN 1976 AND 1988 205

25

TABLES (continued)

Walt


TABLE II.1 PERCEMT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING WITHSTATEMENTS REGARDING CHANGES iN USE OFINDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLANS 213

TABLE 11.2 AVERAGE LENGTH OF ENROLLMEW AT SEPARATEFACILITIES 214

TABLE 11.3 NEW DAYTIME PLACEMENTS OF 1987 SEPARATE SCHOOLRELEASES AGE 047 YFARS 216

TABLE 11.4 NEW DAYTIME PLACEMENTS OF 1987 SEPARATE SCHOOLRELEASES AGE 18-21 YEARS 217

TABLE 11.5 PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES REPORTINGCHANGES AND VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN SECURINGAPPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS FOR EXITING STUDENTS 218

TABLE 11.6 PROVISION OF SERVICES BY SEPARATE scHams TOEXITING STUDENTS 224

TABLE 11.7 PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES WITH CERTIFICA-TION AND/OR LICENSE FROM ONE OR MORE GOVERN-MENTAL AGENCIES 234

TABLE 11.8 raCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES WITH ACCREDITA-TION BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIT1 235

TABLE 11.9 FREQUENCY OF PROGRAM REVIEWS BY SEPARATEFACILITIES 237

TABLE III.1 STAFF HOURS PER WEEK PER STUDENT BY TYPE OFSTAFF 245

TABLE 111.2 PERCENT OF TOTAL TEACHER HOURS BY CERTIFICATIONSTATUS 248

TABLE 111.3 RATIO OF TEACHF' TIME TO TIME SPENT BY AIDESAND OTHER CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF 249

TABLE 111.4 AVERACE ANNUAL TURNOVER OF STAFF AT SEPARATEFACILITIES 250

TABLE 111.5 PERCEPTION OF PERSONNEL PROBLEMS AT SEPARATEFACILITIES 252

26

TABLES (continued)

Table Paae


TABLE 111.6 PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING WITHSTATEMENT REGARDING CHANGES IN STAFF QUALITY . . . . 254

TABLE 111.7

TABLE 111.8

TABLE 111.9

TABLE IV.1

CHANGES FROM 1979 TO 1988 IN THE RATIO OFINSTRUCTICWAL STAFF TO STUDENTS AT SEPARATEFACILITIES 258

AVERAGE ANNUAL HOURS OF IN-SERVICE TRAININGPER STAFF MEMBER AT SEPARATE FACILITIES 261

FREQUENCY OF STAFF EVALUATIONS BY SEPARATEFACILITIES 269

PERCENT Cf SEPARATE SCHOOL STUDENTS ATTENDINGOFF-CAMPUS EDUCATIONAL OR DEVELOpMENTALPROGRAMS 277

TABLE IV.2 PERCENT OF SEPARATE SCHOOL STUDENTS PAR-TICIPATING IN NON-INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIESAND PERCENT PARTICIPATING WITH NONHANDICAPPEDPEERS 280

TABLE IV.3

TABLE IV.4

TABLE IV.5

PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING WITHSTATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN OPPORTUNITIES FORINTERACTION WITH NONHANDICAPPED PEERS 283

PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES REPORTING ONSTUDENT PROGRESS TO PARENTS 286

PERCENT Cf ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING WITHSTATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN CONTACT WITH PARENTS . . . 290

xxiv 27

FIGURES

Figure

FIGuRE 1.1 SYSTEM OF ORGANIZATIONSFACILITIES

FIGURE 1.2 DIAGRAM OF HYPOTHESIZEDSEPARATE FACILITIES

XXV

RELATED TO SEPARATE

"MODEL" OF EFFECTS ON

28


VOLUME III:

STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICEAT SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

PART ONE: DESIGN AND CONTEXT

I. INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN

The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) Amendments of 1983 and 1986

required that U.S. Department of Education collect information on special

education programs for children and youth with handicaps in separate

facilities. The mandate called for: "an analysis and evaluation of the

effectiveness of procedures undertaken by each State education agency, local

education agency, and intermediate educational unit to improve programs of

instruction for handicapped children and youth in day or residential

facilities" (Section 618(f)(2)(E) of P.L. 98-199). To respond to this

mandate, the Office of Special Education Programs awarded a contract to

Mathematica Policy Research, Decision Resources Corporation, and the

University of Minnesota to conduct a Study of Programs of Instruction for

Handicapped Children and Youth in Day and Residential Facilities.

The facilities of concern for this study are referred to in this report

as "separate facilities." A separte_gacilitv was defined as a residential

or day facility exclusively serving handicapped persons in buildings

physically separate from programs for non-handicapped age peers. Eligible

separate facilities may be operated by the State education agency, other State

agencies, local education agencies, county or regional agencies, or private

organizations. However, correctional facilities and those with average

lengths of stay of less than 30 days were excluded from this study.

A residential seParate facilitt was defined as a separate facility at

which at least some handicapped persons reside _14.ar at which at least some

3t)

students age 0 22 receive educational services on the grounds of the

facility during ihe usual school day. The special education services at these

facilities may be provided by the operating agency or by another agency. It

is important to note, with regard to residential schools or facilities, that

many students are placed primarily for reasons other than to receive special

education services. These placement decisions may be made to provide

relatively short-term medical or psychological treatments or long-term

residential care which could continue indefinitely. / eparate dav school or

facility was defined as a separate facility at which no handicapped persons

reside Ansi at which students age 0 to 22 receive educational services during

the usual school day.

There were four specific research goals of the Study of Prceatul; of

Instruction for Handicapped Children and Youth in Day and Residential

Facilities:

o To provide nationally representative estimates of the currentstatus of education afforded to handicapped children and youthin separate facilities

o To describe changes in the population and services of separatefacilities since the passage of P.L. 94-142

o To describe procedures used by State educational agencies(SEAs) to improve the instructional programs at separate dayand residential facilities

o To describe the influence of State procedures on changes infacility practice, as well as the influence of other factorssuch as the procedures of local and intermediate educationagencies.

111.2

3

This volume of the final report for the Study of Programs of Instruction

for Handicapped Children and Youth in Day and Residential Facilities presents

the results of the analysis of SEA procedures and their impact on special

education services within separate facilities. The remainder of this chapter

details the research questions addressed by the analysis and describes the

data collection and analysis approaches.

A. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OVERALL DESIGN

The study of SEA procedures and their impact on educational practice.at

separate facilities addressed three related sets of questions (see Murphy,

1980, for a similar approach):

1. What procedures are used by State education agencies toinfluence special education programs at separate facilities?

2. What is the perceived and/or experienced effect of Stateprocedures on special education programs at separatefacilities?

3. What accounts for variation in the effectiveness of Stateprocedures, and what other factors affect special educationprograms at separate taci ities?

The dimensions of special education programs examined in this study were

those which are the focus of and/or are susceptible to policy interventions,

particularly at the State level. Such dimensions include staffing,

instructional approaches, delivery of program services (including

opportunities for integration), and accountability (such as planning and

assessment at the student level and program evaluation).

111.3

32

States have available a number of types of procedures to attempt to

tmprove special education programs and instructional practices and ultimately

the education provided to handicapped students in separate facilities (as well

as that provided in other settings). These procedures include:

o Funding (the level and distribution of entitlement anddiscretionary or special purpose grants)

o Standards (in areas such as staff certification, student-staff ratios, class size, length of school day and year,curricula or graduation requirements)

o Mbnitoring (in terms of content or focus, preparation andfollow-up activities, and sanctions or assistance associatedwith SEA review of facility records and procedures)

o Technical assistance and training (via seminars or workshopsand consultation with individual facilities)

o Program development and dissemination (development,adaptation, and/or distribution of curricula, instructionalmaterials, procedural manuals, or information regarding state-of-the-art practices)

These SEA procedures are embedded within the larger entire special

education system, which includes not only local educational agencies and

intermediate education units but also other State agencies and numerous non-

governmental groups and organizations. Figure 1.1 illustrates, in schematic

form, the system of organizations and organizational policies, procedures,

and practices as they were hypothesized to relate to day and residential

facilities. Each line shown in the figure is a hypothesized path of influence

and each bux an element of the system.

This study primarily focused on the elements of the system and paths of

influence in the center of the figure--thuse directly linking the SEA

FIGURE 1.1

SYSTEM OF ORGANIZATIONSRELATED TO SEPARATE FACILITIES

Local Demographic,Economic, and Political

Context

1

LocalNoneducationAgency

Goals andPolicies

LocalEducation

Acy(incgenluding 1(U)

coals andPolicies

Procedurel Procedures

and andPractices Practices

Ecosadc, ad Alttica-1-1Wept .

State Ilenemplik

1

(ands% artfirtti, ram=SEA avedaationl Cube

SEA Gods, Policies,andIspolotisms

SEA Proem lionsaid Pratt=

Inter-

ftencYAgreement

State Non-educational

Agency

Joint

AgencyProcedures

and Practices

Goals, Laws. Policiesand Regulations

Professional/AccreditationOrganization

EdrestionslProctios at Daysal lintlottal

Soweto Facilities

Proceduresand

Practices

Parents.

Groups

Universities/Research

Community

34 2 5

organization and procedure.) with facility practice. Other parts of the figure

were explored as they related to the effect of SEA procedures on the

educational programs at separate facilities.

The primary focus of this study was specified to be the link between

State education agencies and separate facilities as a way of understanding

change in several key aspects of educational practice at separate facilities.

Therefore, the unit of analysis is the facility. The pal of i !case studies

undertaken within the overall design of the project was to identify and

describe how State education agencies had been able to use various State-level

procedures to influence changes in educational practices at separate

facilities since the passage of PA 94-142. There are inevitably other

issues that, while important, cannot be, and were not intended to be,

addressed by this study. These include examination of changes in the

procedures by which students are identified, evaluated, and placed in separate

facilities; analyses of the educational processes at separate facilities as

they are designed to meet the unique needs of individual students placed

there; and assessment of the quality of instruction at separate facilities and

changes in quality as indicated by student outcomes. This study does,

however, lay the groundwork for research on these and other important issues,

by providing a detailed description of the current characteristics and

practices at separate facilities and the changes which have been undergone at

separate facilities over the past decade and a half.

Four coordinated data collection efforts were used to examine the

research questions and the relationships outlined in Figure 1.1. Two separate

111.6

but related in-depth case study efforts were conducted, one at the level of

the State education agency (conducted in mid-1987), and the other at the level

of individual separate facilities within the State (conducted in 1988).1

While not a nationalty representative sample of States or facilities, these

case studies supported a detailed examination of the dynamics of the

relationship between State procedures and facility practice. In addition to

the case studies, a survey was conducted in 1988 with the State divisions of

special education in all fifty States and the District of Columbia.2 A survey

of nearly 2,000 separate facilities, also conducted in 1988, provided

quantified nationally representative data on educational practice and changes

at separate facilities. Both surveys asked for data from the 1987-88 school

year.

B. DESIGN OF THE STATE-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION EFFORT

An understanding of tile role of SEA procedures in affecting educational

practice at separate 'facilities for handicapped students must take into

account variation in the role and functions of State education agencies and

in the structure of States' special education systems.

The State-level components of the study served three important purposes:

o To provide a detailed understanding of SEA procedures, asdesigned and implemented, both currently and as they havechanged since the passage of P.L. 94-142

lite desigh of the case study component of this study drew heavily uponthe approach described in Yin, 1984.

2All S;ates except Hawaii responded to this survey.

111.7

3 7

o To describe variations in SEA procedures in States withdiffering special education systems

o To provide a better understanding of how States view theresponse of individual facilities to SEA procedures inpreparation for the facility-level case study

Accordingly, State-level data were required in the following areas:

o The organizational structure and authority of the divisionsof special education within SEAs

o The procedures and practices of SEAs with regard to specialeducation and their effectiveness as reported or documentedat the State level

o Perceived barriers or facilitators to the effectiveimplementation of SEA special education procedures

o Historical background of special education, including patternsof use of separate facilities

o The demographic, economic, and political context of the States

1. Dat: Nods f Q-1,1n3 Case Studv and Survey of SEAS ial Educatigattyiligat

The State-level Case Studies' provided detailed data on SEA procedures and

on changes in SEA procedures since passage of P.L. 94-142 mandated that State

education agencies take responsibility for the supervision of all publicly

supported special education programs. Table 1.1 presents a detailed summary

of the specific data catego) al elements identified for the State-Level Case

Study effort. The State-Level Case Study effort, while iocusing on the

special education division of the SEA, also included extensive interviews with

'These case studies were conducted by staff of Mathematica PolicyResearch, Decision Resources Corporation, and the University of Minnesota.

111.8

TABLE 1.1

DATA CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS FOR STATE-LEVEL CASE STUDIES

Data Cateaorv Specific Data Element Further Description

Historical Backgroundto Special Education

SEA OrganizationalStructure andAuthority

Legislative andCourt Actions onSpecial EducationIssues

Role of OtherAgencies inSpecial Education

Use of SeparateFacilities

M-Jor provisions of currentstatutes

Major changes in statutoryprovisions

Major court actions orlegislative inquiries

Current and past involvementof other agencies in termsof funding, provision/supervision of educationalservices, standards andmonitoring

Current and past placementpatterns, numbers and typesof separate facilities,numbers and handicappingconditions of studentsplaced in separatefacilities

Interorganizational Status of SEA within StateStructure of SEA government

Functions handled outside SEA

Interorganizational Status of special educationStructure of Special within SEAEducation Division Functions handled outside

divisionUnits/functions withindivision

Centralized versus regionalstructure

Current and past staffingpatterns

111.9 3,.

1

?Rita Cateoory_ Specific _Data Element

. Autonomy Definitions and legalauthority of substateeducational units

ftLandlthaL

.,..: State authority over localunit operation, budgets,decisions

Fiscal relationships betweenSEA and local units

TABLE 1.1 (continued)

SEA Plans and Goals Targetted Areas Current and past goalsRegarding Special for Improvement Allocation of staff and budgetEducation Priority areas for monitoring,

use of discretionary funds,training and programdevelopment

Procedures used to achievespecific goals

Perceived/documented successin goal attainment

Planning and Existence and status of longEvaluation range planning and/orActivities evaluation unit/function

Resources/activities/productsFactors affecting developmentand/or implementation ofplans

SEA Procedures arel Allocation of Funds: Availability, sources, andPractices Current and Timeline control of funds

of Major Changes Funding allocation formulaAvailability/Use of

ditcretionary fundsUse of funds as incentivesand/or sanctions

40


Data Cateaorv Specific Data Element Further Description

Certification andStandards: Currentand Timeline ofMajor Changes

,

Regulations/requirementsApplicability to separate

facilitiesProblem areasCompliance/exceptionsSanctions available andapplied

Monitoring: Current Locus of responsibilityand Timeline of Instruments and proceduresMajor Changes Application of sanctions

Schedule vis-a-vis separatefacilities

Inservice Training: Assessment of needCurrent and Timeline Resourcesof Major Efforts Methods of provision

Participation by separatefacilities

TechnicalAssistance:Current andTimeline ofMajor Efforts

Assessment of needResourcesMethods of provisionParticipation by separatefacilities

Program Development: Targetted areasCurrent and Timeline Resourcesof Major Efforts Products

Utilization by separatefacilities


Data Cateoorv Specific Dais) Element Further Description

Facilitators/Barriers toImplementation ofProcedures

Demographic,Economic,PoliticalContext

Dissemination:Current andTimeline ofMajor Efforts

Current andTimeline ofMajor Impacts

Current andTimeline ofMajor Changes

Resources/staffActivities/productsContent

Participation by/distributionto separate facilities

Legal/regulatory provisionsPolitical relationships/agendas

Financial constraintsOrganizational structure/

authority

Funding levels and sourcesfor education

Political agendasEconomic climate of StateShifts in population

42

staf at other State agencies operating or monitoring separate facilities for

students with handicaps (for example, the State departments of mental health,

mental retardation, child welfare, and so on).

The Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions4 of necessity focused on a

smaller set of variables, those which appeared, based on the case studies, to

'1 critical to State impact on separate facilities. It also obtained data

only from staff in the SEA's special education division. (See Table 1.2; the

questionnaire is included in Volume IV of this report.) The survey data were

primarily designed to provide descriptive data on SEA procedures for all

States at the time of the survey, that is, mid 1988.

The analyses of change and the impact of SEA procedures on facility

practice were the unique cortribution of the integrated State-facility case

study effort.

2. SElection and Recruitment of Case Study States

Eight States were selected for case study. These States are not intended

to be represente.ive of all the States. Given the complexity of the

relationships between States and separate facilities, States were selected

primarily based on the State's reported use of those facilities.

a. Criteria for State Selection

Based on State placement patterns for day and residential facilities (as

reported tc the U.S. Department of Education and subsequently published in the

`This survey was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research. The surveydata include information provided by the District of Columbia and all Statesexcept Hawaii.

111.13

4 3

TABLE 1.2

DATA CATEGCr.IES AND ELEMENTS FOR SURVEY OF

SEA SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISIONS

Data Cateaorv

Organization and Responsibilitiesof the Division of Special Education

State Funding of SpecialEducation Programs

Standards for Special EducationFacilities and Programs

Compliance Monitoring

Technical Assistance andIn-Service Training

Specific Data Element

Organizational StructureNumber of Professional PositionsAllocation of Staff Time by Areaof Responsibility

Goals and Priorities of Divisionof Special Education

Changes since 1975 in Organization,

Staffing, Responsibilities ofDivision of Special Education

Funding Formula for LEA ProgramsFunding Mechanisms for Other

Special Education ProgramsAllocation of ENA-B GrantIncentives/Disincentives of StateFunding Mechanisms for StudentPlacement in Separate Facilities

Comparison of LEA to Other SpecialEducation Program Standards

School Approval Procedure by Typeof Program

Monitoring Procedures by Type ofProgram

Coordination of Special Educationand Other Compliance Monitoring

Impact of Monitoring on ProgramsFactors Affecting Effectiveness

of Monitoring

Types of Staff/Organizations

Primarily Involved in VariousActivities

44


pits_ctstmay $.221ifkiattiltssa_

Use of Separate Facilities

Impact of Other Organizat;onson Separate Facilities

Operating AgencyNumber of Facilities, Day andResidential

Number of StudentsPrimary Handicapping Conditionsof Students

Provider of Special Education toStudents in Other State-OperatedSeparate Facilities

Number of Students Placed Out ofState

Impact of State Legislation,Court Decisions, Advocacyor Professiona: Organizationson Placements at SeparateFacilities

Impact of State Legislation,Court Decisions, Advocacyor Professional Organizationson Improvements at SeparateFacilities

4 5

Department's Eiahth Annual Report and Ninth Annual boort to Conaress on the

Implementation of the Education of All Handicapped Act (1986 and 1987)),

States which placed either a relatively large or small proportion of students

in these facilities were identified as potentially eligible for case study,

as were States which had substantially changed their placement patterns since

P.L. 94-142 was passed.

Recommendations of experts in the field were also solicited to identify

States where SEA procedures, interagency relationships, court decisions, or

advocacy group actions were likely have influenced educational practices

in day and residential facilities. The selection process and the Statec

selected are discussed below. Further detail is given in Technical

Appendix III.'.

Placement'Patterns. Three analyses were performed to provide a list of

potential case study States:

1. Examination of ranking of States' in terms of current(1983-84) use of separate facilities for all handicappedstudents

2. Examination of ranking of States in terms of change (1976-77to 1983-84) in use of separate facilities for allhandicapped students'

'All analyses included data on the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

'It is important to note that the State-reported placement data showconsiderable fluctuation from year to year in the numbers of studentsclassified with particular handicapping conditions. In particular, thereoften appears to be a dramatic decrease in the number of students with mentalretardation over a short period of time. There are a number of possiblereasons for such changes, including definitional changes and changes inreporting or classification procedures. For whatever reason, thesefluctuations may make it difficult to peecisely measure changes in use ofseparate facilities, if the classification of students placed at separatefacilities is morc stble than those placed in other settings. For example,it is possible that students placed in separate facilities for mentalretardation continue to be classified as mentally retarded, while studentsserved in local public schools are more likely to be reclassified from mentalretardation to learning disabilities or other conditions.

111.16

4R

3. Examination of rankings of State in terms of 1984-85 useof separate day facilities for mentally retarded/multiplyhandicapped, emotionally disturbed, or sensory impairedchildren'

The first two analyses examined the extent to which States served

handicapped children in settings other than the regular school environment

(i.e., in separate schools and other environments) during the 1983-84 school

year and the extent to which State placement patterns had changed from 1976-77

to 1983-84. (The 1983-84 data were the latest available data at the time

these analyses were performed.) Table 1.3 lists States identified as "high"

or "low" from the analyses of the OSEP State-reported placemeat data from

1983-84.

Four States were identified as relatively high users of separate

facilities during the 1983-84 school year in all analyses with respect to

school age students (6-17 year olds). (This age group is of particular

interest since over 90 percent of the children receiving special education

fail into this category and because States are similar to one another in the

provision of services for this population.) These States include Connecticut,

Delaware, Maryland, and New York. States showing relatively low use of

separate settings and relatively large decreases in the use of such settings

since the 1976-77 school year did not show the same consistency across States

'These three handicap groupings were selected based on analyses ofplacement data (see Technical Appendix 111.A) which identified childrenwith these handicaps as the most likely to be served in separate facilities.The problems of interpretation of these data associated with fluctuations inthe numbers of students classified in these groups, particularly in mentalretardation, noted in the above footnote, also apply to these analyses.

4 7

TABLE 1.3

STATES RATED AS "HIGH" OR "LOW" FOR USE OF SEPARATE SETTINGS DURING 1983-84AND FOR CHANGES BETWEEN 1976-77 AND 1983-84 IN USE OF SEPARATE SETTINGS

FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS

High Low

Connecticut California

Delaware Colorado

Maryland Georgia

New York Massachusetts

Michigan

New Jersey'

Based on analyses of 1983-1984 placement data (see Technical Appendix III.A).

'While still a relatively high user of separate facilities, New Jersey had alarge decrease in the number and proportion of students with hindicaps servedin separate facilities in the 1976-77 to 1983-84 period.

48

as among high use States. However, in the rankings ot State programs for

school-aged students, Colorado, Massachusetts, California, Georgia, and

Michigan appeared in two of the three.analyses. In addition to these States,

New Jersey stood out particularly with respect to change since the

implementation lf P.L. 94-142. New Jersey's decrease of 14,000 cchool-aged

handicapped students in separate facilities was second only to Massachusetts'

decrease of 16,000.

The 1984-85 placement data reported by the States to the U.S. Department

of Education in the Annual Data Reports, unlike that provided by the States

for 1983-84 and previous school years, requirea that States provide counts of

the numbers of students served in specific types of day and residential

facilities (i.e., public day, public residential, private day, and private

tile of residential). Preliminary data from these State reports, available

at the time of the study, were used to calculate the proportion of students

served in each type of facility for each State for the three categories of

handicapping conditions. The number of students served in private and public

placements were combined to calculate these proportions. States were then

tanked from high to low on these proportions and an average rank was

calculated separately for day and residential placements. Table 1.4 presents

a list of States which had high average ranks for both day and residential

facilities; low ranks for both types of facilities; low and high ranks for day

and residential facilities, respectively; and high and low ranks for day and

residential facilities, respectively.

111.19

4 9

STATE PLACEMENT PATTERNS FOR MAJOR HANDICAP GROUPSFOR THE 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR

High Use of Both Day and Residential Facilitill

Connecticut

Maryland

Low Use of Day and High Use of Residegial Faciliiill

Idaho Oklahoma

Kansas South Dakota

High Use of Day and LQW Use of Residential Facilities

Delaware Minnesota

Florida New Jersey

Illinois Pennsylvania

Low Use of Bottandfteside:

Georgia Michigan

Hawaii South Carolina

Massachusetts Texas

Based on 1984-1985 placement data (see Technical Appendix III.A).

NOTE: Major handicap groups are mentally retarded/multiply handicapped,emotionally disturbed, and sensory impaired.

111.20

50

Expert Recommendations. To obtain qualitative information regarding

factors likely to be related to State procedures and their irpact on the

instruction of children in day and residential facilities, individuals

knowledgeable about State activities and facilities serving handicapped

children were contacted. These indivict_:- included representatives of the

Division of Assistance to the States, Regional Resource Centers, State

Departments of Education, professional associations, and advocacy groups.

b. Selection and Recruitment of States for Case Study

Basef, on the analysis of placement patterns and experts' recommendation,

an initial set of eight States were proposed for case study:

o California

o Louisiana

o Georgia

o Illinois

o Maryland

o New Jersey

o New York

o Ohio

The director of special education in each selected State was mailed a

letter outlining the study requirements and requesting participation,

111.21

5

following circulation of a memorandum on the study from the Office of Special

Education Programs to the directors of special education in all States.'

After State considerations regarding participation in the study were

reviewed, a final set of case study States was developed, including:

o California

o Connecticut

o Florida

o Illinois

o Louisiana

o New Jersey

o Ohio

o South Carolina

Table 1.5 provides summary information on the States participating in the

case studies.

3. State-Level Case Studv Protocol ah- Procedures

The State Director of Special Education in the selected case study States

was contacted during the late spring and summer of 1987 and asked to designate

a liaison staff person for the study. Initial contacts with the liaisons

included requests for documentary materials. After reviewing the documentary

material, the site visits and in-person discussions with SEA and other State

agency staff were scheduled. Tha site visits began in June 1987 and were

'The Chief State School Officers in the selected States were also sent aninformational letter about the study.

111.22

52

TABLE 1.5

SUMMARY INFORMATION ON STATES SELECTED FOR CASE STUDY

State

Total

Population 1983-1985Size Placement Patterns'

Distinctive Features ofSpecial Education System

Florida

Ohio

Illinois

California

Connecticut

5 3

Large

Large

Large

Large

Small

High use of separatefacilities

Mid to high use ofseparate facilities`

Mixed use of separatefacilities`

Low use of sepaeatefacilities

High use of separatefacilities

Extensive use of interagencyagreements; Department ofHealth and RehabilitationServices operates separatefacilities with educationprovided by LEAs; Littleuse of private facilities

Public day schools run bycounty boards of MRS, Stateagencies operate educationalprograms in separate facilities;Little use of private facilities

Joint agreements operateseparate facilities; Stateagencies operate educationalprograms in some facilities;Private facilities used

Regional and State agenciesoperate separate facilities;Private facilitiec used

Various State agencies andintermediate education agenc'tsoperate separate facilities;Private facilities usedextensively

Rtgion

South.

Central

Central

West

East

S 4


State

TotalPopulation 1983-1985 Distinctive Features of

Size Placement Patterns' Special Education System Reoion

Louisiana Small Mid to high use of SEA operates educational Southseparate facilities component of programs in

facilities operated byother State agencies; Privatefacilities used

New Jersey Small Mixed use of separate Various intermediate andfacilities° regional education agencies

operate separate facilities;Private facilities usedextensively; State agency(other than SEA) operateseducational program

South Carolina Small Low use of separate State agencies operatefacilities educational program in

separate facilities; Littleuse of private facilities

East

South

°See Technical Appendix A.

°There has been a trend to transfer students frLa county programs to LEA programs.

`Pattern: h:gh use of day facilities, middle range use of residential facilities for major handicap groups(mental retardation/multiple handicaps, sensory impairments, emotional disturbance).

°Pattern: high use of day facilities, low use of residential facilities for major handicap groups; also hada large decrease in number of school-aged and other handicapped students placed in separate facilities between1976-77 and 1983-84. 56

completed in September 1987. A protocol package (outlined in detail in

Technical Appendix 111.8) was prepared to ensure that site analysts obtained

the required information from each State. The package contained the topic-

by-topic guide for reviewing State documents and holding discussions with

State staff. It also contained instmctions regarding activities each site

a. Ilyst was to complete before, during, and after the site visit. Appended

to the protocol were sample letters and other materials sent to the State

directors liaison staff prior to the site visit.

Persons in the following positions were generally identified from

organizational charts and initial discussions with the State liaisons as

appropriate respondents for the case study interviews:

o The D4rector of Special Education and others involved in

policy setting for and the high-level management of specialeducation programs in the State

o Unit supervisors or managers in areas such as monitoring,technical assistance, training, program development, fundsdisbursement and accounting, statistical compilation andanalysis, and long-range planning and evaluation

o Staff involved with the development and implementation of theState's Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD)

o Staff involved in the planning, coordination, and delivery oftechnical assistance, in-service training, and informationdissemination to LEAF and facilities

o SEA staff responsible for noordinating activities vithother State agencies operating separate facilities fornandicapped students through either formal interagencyagreements or less formal working relationships

o Staff in other State agencies responsible for coordinatingactivities with the SEA in the operation, licensing/accreditation, or monitoring of separate facilities forhandicapped students operated by these other State agencies

111.25

5 7

Prior to the site visit, site analysts reviewed available documentary

information, whiih could include:

o State statutes and regulations applicable to special education

o Historical summaries of special education policy, legislation,and practice in the State

o SEA and Division of Special Education organizationalcharts and directory of positions and units

o Annual data reports

o State plans and suppor: -g documents

o SEA monitoring instruments and procedural manuals

o SEA special education publications and distribution lists

o Agendas and reports from SEA conferences, workshops, orseminars on special education

o Interagency agreements

o SEA application forms and procedures for facility approval orcertification

o Schedules, agendas, and attendance rosters for SEA in-servicetraining and technical assistance activities

o Census and other aggregate statistics on each State

This review identified information gaps and State-specific events or practices

to be explored during interviews. Site analysts also obtained copies of

additional documentary materials during the site visit for later review.

Initial analyses of the State-level Case Study data, based on the site

analyst notes, were used to develop the facility-level case studies and the

survey of SEA divisions of special education. Preliminary analysis of the

State case study data and Plans for the facility case studies were completed

111.26

by the end of 1987. The data needs and questionnaire for the survey of all

State divisions'or offices of special education were developed during the

early months of 1988 and the survey was conducted between July and December

of that year.

Individual State reports, drafted by the site analysts arid circulated

among other study staff for review and comment, were completeu ay early 1988.

A revised draft report was then sent to the State director of special

education in each case study State. The State site reports underwent another

round of revisions based on comments from the States and were then available

for final analysis.

C. DESIGN OF THE FACILITY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION EFFORT

The Facility-level components of the study were designed:

o To provide national data on current characteristics (such asthose of the student population, staff, and programming) forthe broad range of separate facilities providing specialeducation services to students with handicaps, and to estimatechanges in these characteristics in the years after theimplementation of P.L. 94-142

o To provide an in-depth description of changes in educationalpractices since the passnge of P.L. 94-142 at different typesof separate facilities

o To describe the influence of SEA procedures on changes infacility educational practice

o To describe the influence of other factors on changes infacility practices

The design of the Survey of Separate Facilities is described in detail

in Volume II. It was designed to provide nationally representative data on

111.27

the separate facilities in operation during the 1988-89 school year and to

estimate changei in separate facilities from both retrospective reports and

comparison with a previous survey conducted in 1978-79. The Facility-level

Case Studies were designed to understand how instructional programs at

separate facilities changed in response to SEA procedures and other factors

including LEA and IEU practices. The case studies were not designed to

directly assess whether changes in instructional practices provided better

education for handicapped students or helped students learn and achieve more.

However', underlying the case study effort is the basic assumption that

instructional practices are linked to student outcomes.

I. Information Needs for the Facility Case Study Component

Information collected during the facility site visits focused on changes

over the past ten years in the facility practices in the following areas:

o Staffing patterns (including qualifications, experience,duties--administrative, instructional, residential, relatedservIcas)

o Staff development and in-service training (availability bothin-house and from external sources, participation, lontentareas)

o Program and staff evaluation and identification of areasneeding improvement

o Use of new methods of instruction or new curricula anddevelopment of new programs

o Student movement out of separate facilities and plahning fortransition

o Student integration oppor_unities (interaction with non-handicapped peers and others in the community and use ofcommunity programs and facilities)

111.28

60

o Involvement of parents in program planning, review, andevaluatton at the student and the facility level.

2. Selection of Facilities

The first step in the selection process was to identify the types of

students with handicaps most often served in separate schools. To do this,

the preliminary 1984-85 State-reported placement data were examined for the

proportion of chiluren with specific handicaps in four types of separate

schools: private day, public day, private residential, and public

residential. Detailed results of those analyses are included in Technical

Appendix III.A. Based on these analyses, three handicapping conditions were

selected as those most likely to be "overrepresented" among students enrolled

in separate facilities compared to the prevalence among all students with

handicaps: sensory handicaps (hard of hearing, deafness, and visually

handicaps), emotional disturbance, and mental retardation and/or multiple

handicaps. (The last category includes two conditions because the incidence

of mental retardation is high among students with multiple handicaps and

because these two groups are often served in the same facilities.)

A distinction by type of operator (private, State, and local) was also

expected to predict SEA influence on facility practice. Further, while State-

operated programs are generally residential, local public programs are

generally day, and private facilities include both day and residential

programs. Therefore, any selection of facilities across the three operator

categories would include both day and residential programs. (See Table 1.6,

which presents estimates of the population of separate facilities distributed

111.29

1

Primary Handicapping

Coaditioe Serval"

ESTEMATES OF MOSER OF SUMMATE FACILITIES IN NATION. IY OPERATOR.TYPE OF NOONAN AND MUMMY MANDICAPPIN COMMON SERVED

PirlftW 11RWERIMitgby a State Local or Regional a Private by e State local or Wool a PrivateAGM. t1611cAsseca Otilaitstifee Army Pmblic Assecv OrmaitatioeMental Retardation

or Multiple

handicaps la

Emotional Disturbances

Sensory Impairments

Other

067 412 174 56 219

247 314 69 35 515

20 5922

217 34564

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Fe, i +es conduct n 1966 as part of this study. See Volume II, Pert One, Chapter I.

*The primary handicapping condition of the sejcr :y of students served by the facility.

*Indicates cells where coefficieet of variation isgreater thee .30, that is, conventional standards

indicate that estisetes areinsufficiently precise to be interpreted.

111.30

across these categories, based on data from the Survey of Separate

Facilities.) Therefore, the final typology for facility selection was based

on type of operator defined in three categories (private, State, and local

public) and primary handicap served (mental retardation/multiple handicaps,

eme.ional disturbance, and sensory impairment).

Table 1.7 summarizes the State-by-State selection of facilities for

intensive case study. Several points can be noted about this distribution of

case study facilities:

o Three facilities were selected in each of the eight case studyStates for a total of 24 facilities. Under this plan, 9 State-operated facilities, 10 facilities operated by LEAs, IEUs, orregional or county agencies, and 5 private facilities wereselected.

o Of the facilities selected, half were residential and halfoperated day programs only.

o The 24 facilities were distributed so that 10 visits wereconducted at facilities for mentally retarded students, 10 atfacilities for emotionally disturbed students, and 4 atfacilities for sensory impaired students.'

o Within the State-operated facilities for sensory impairedchildren selected for study, two are operated by the SEA andtwo as independent State agencies. Also, two facilities serveboth hearing impaired and visually impaired students, whileone facility serves only visually impaired students and theremaining facility serves only hearing impaired students.

Potential candidates for case study facilities matching the selection criteria

were selected from among respondents to the pilot survey of facilities

'Because there are relatively few separate facilities for sensory impairedstudents operated by local education agencies or private organizations, nosuch facilities were selected for the case study.

111.31

TABLE 1.7

DISTRIBUTION OF SEPARATE FACILITIES SELECTED FOR CASE STUDY

PrimaryHandicapGroupServed

Tvpe of OperatorState Agency Local Agency(SEA or Other) (LEA or IEU)

PrivateOrganization

TOTAL NUMBEROF FACILITIES.

Mentally 6 6 2 7 10Retarded/ 7 3 5 3Multply 2 7

Handicapped

Sensory 6Impaired 3 4

1

5(3 HI programs,3 VI programs)

Emotionally 4 4 2 4 10DiAurbed 8 8 5

1

81

TOTAL NUMBER 9 10 5 24OF FACILITIES

State Codes: To preserve anonymity of facilities, Statesare identified by number (1 through 8) inthis table.

Handicap Codes: HI = hearing *airedVI = visually impaired

( 64 65

conducted concurrently with the State site visits. Where no pilot survey

respondents were available having the necessary characteristics, nominations

were solicited from the State Directors or their designated liaison. It is

possible that facilities selected from this pool of respondents and nominees

would be more interested in the study, on better terms with their respective

SEA, and perhaps more optimistic about the changes in the special education

system than other facilities. However, the results do not suggest that the

case study facilities overestimated changes or the role of the SEA in

influencing those changes.

3. Facility-Level Case Study Protocol and Procedures

Selected facilities were contacted regarding participation in the early

months of 1988. Only two of the selected facilities declined to participate

and were replaced. Site visits to facilities began in March of 1988 and were

completed in June of that year. Site visits at participating facilities

included interviews with facility staff and staff at local education agencies

and State agencies involved with the facilities. Site analysts used a

detailed outline or case study protocol to guide the interviews and the

collection of documentary information while on site. The site visit protocol

is described in more detail in Technical Appendix III.D.

Figure 1.2 is a schematic diagram of the hypothesized "model" relating

SEA procedures and other factors to changes in facility educational practice.

This diagram served as a heuristic aid for developing questions for the

facility protocol. It was also used during the Facility-level Case Study

interviews with facility and local education agency staff.

111.33

FIGURE 1.2

DIAGRAM OF HYPOTHESIZED "MODEL" OF EFFECTS ON SEPARATE FACILITIES

STATECONTUT MANSES IN

WIWILES: MLITT Man:

SEA PROMS: - Staffing PatternsStructure and

Responsibilities

of SER

Role of Cther State

Agencies in Special

Education

StrUcture of Special

Education

41.

Role of Advocacy and

Professional Groups

Economic Context

Legislative Context

Funding

Standards

Monitoring

Technical Assistance

and Training

Program Develcorent

anti Dissemination

LOCAL CONTEXT VANIAILES:

LEA. 1EU. and Other StateAgency Practices

Changes in Student Population

Facilty Leadership andInitiatives

Staffing Development

Program and Staff

Evaluation

Adoption of New Methods and

Programs of Instruction

Student Transition

Student Integration

Parental Involvement

67

Facility respondents were asked to report on current practices and

changes in practice since 1975 and on the factors affecting both current

practices and chahges in practice. While the main focus of the study was on

the effects of SEA procedures on these changes at the facility, facility

respondents were also asked how LEA, IEU, and other State agency procedures

or practices may have affected the facility. Further, changes in the student

population (in numbers, age distribution, handicapping condition, and severity

of impairment) and the facility's own ieadership were also probed as to their

influence on changes in instructional practices at the facility. The

remainder of Part One of this volume provides information on the States

selected for case study, in particular, their economir and educational

context, the various elements of their special education systems, and the

structure of the clivision, office, or bureau within the SEA responsible for

special education. Part Two of this volume then describes in detail the

various SEA procedures--funding, standarus, monitoring, technical assistance,

in-service training, program development, and disseminatien--that have

potential influence on educdtional practice at separate facilities for

students with handicaps, drawing upon information from the State-level Case

Study as well as data from the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions.

Part Three draws upon the Survey of Separate Facilities and the Facility-1..vel

Case Study to describe how facility prac ;ice has changed in the areas of

programs and methods of instruction, staffing, student transition integration,

and parental involvement--and how these changes are related to SEA procedures

as well as to other factors.

111.39

II. STATE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

An analysis of how State education agency procedures affect educational

programs in separate'facilities requires an understanding of the broader

context within which these facilities and the State education agencies

currently operate. The ability to make significant efforts to imnrove

educational programs is at least partially affected by availibility a', ate

end local funding for such efforts. The pattern of special education service

delivery as it exists today in a State has also been influenced by the number

of students with handicaps served, the entitlement age ranges for services,

expenditures for education over the years, State special education and general

education legislation, and the impact of interest groups, the courts, and

other State agencies providing education.

In this chapter, indicators of economic health in the case study States

during the years after the passage of P.L. 94-142 are presented. This is

followed by a discussion .of several education indicators for each State

including changes in the school-age population, the number and proportion of

students served as handicapped, and the entitlement age ranges for special

education services. Also included is a description of legislative actions

related to special education as well as general educational reform, and a

brief discussion of the actions of advocacy groups and the courts affecting

separate facilities for the handicapped. The next chapter provides

information on the structure of special education as it currently exists in

the case study States.

111.37

A. ECONOMIC CONTEXT

To assess economic conditions in the States and their impact on

education, two economic indicators are examined: per capita income and per

pupil expenditures foi. education. In 1986, per capita income among the case

study States was highest in Connecticut ($19,600) and New Jersey ($18,626) and

lowest in South Carolina ($11,299) and Louisiana ($11,193). (See Table 1I.1.)

When compared to 1977, Connecticut and New Jersey experienced the greatest

increase in per capita income as a proportion of the national per capita

income. Louisiana with its oil-based economy had experienz.ed the greatest

loss during this period when measured on the same criterion, although Ohio and

Illinois also lost some ground.

Comvred to national per pupil expenditures for education in the 1984-85

school year, South Carolina and Louisiana were substantially lower than the

national average while Connecticut and New Jersey were substantially higher.

Per pupil expenditures for education increased between 1981-82 and 1984-85 in

Connecticut (32.3 percent), South Carolina (29.9 percent), Florida (18.1

percent), and Ohio (17.3 percent). These four States also increased their

standing relative to the national average per pupil expenditures, particularly

Connecticut. The remaining four states (California, Illinois, Louisiana, and

New Jersey) lost ground compared to the national average in the same period,

although New Jersey's per pupil expenditures still remain substantially above

the national average. (See Table 11.2.) Based on State-reported data,

expenditures for special education and related services in 1984-85 were

highest in Illinois ($4,980 per child) and Ohio ($4,704 per child) and lowest

in South Carolina ($1,429 per child) and L-uisiana ($3,005 per chiles). (See

Table 11.3.)

111.38

TABLE 11.1

PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME(In Dollars)

State

1977 1980 1983 1986 Change 19/1-1986

Per

Capita

PersonalIncome

Percentof

National

Averaqe

Per

Capita

PersonalIncome

Percentof

NationalAverage

PerCapita

Personal

Income

Percent

of

NationalAverage

Per

Capita

Personal

Income

Percent

of

NationalAverage

Par

Capita

PersonalIncome

Percentof

NationalAverage

Caiifornia 8.373 114.79 11.603 116.98 13.927 115.12 16.904 115.46 + 8.531 +0.67

Connecticut 8.!63 117.40 12.110 122.09 15.445 127.67 19.600 133.87 +11.037 +16.47

Florida 6.907 94.69 9.765 98.45 12.147 100.41 14.646 100.03 + 7.739 +5.34

Illinois 8.292 113.68 10.840 109.29 12.891 106.55 15.586 106.45 + 7.294 -7.23

Louisiana 6.049 82.93 8.682 87.53 10.458 86.44 11.193 76.45 + 5.144 -6.48

HF-I

New Jersey 8.348 114.45 11.579 116.74 14.894 123.11 18.626 127.22 +10.278 +12.77HL..)

to

Ohio 7.341 100.64 9.723 98.02 11.563 95.58 13.933 95.16 + 6.592 -5.48

South Carolina 5.63 76.27 7.587 76.49 9.328 77.10 11.299 77.17 + 5.736 +0.90

Nation 7.294 9.919 12.098 14.641 + 7.347

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Survey of Current Business.

Amount Per capita personal income (in dollars).

Percent of National Average Per capita personal income as a percentage of nationwide per capita personal inccme for that year.

71.72

TABLE 11.2

EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL(In Constant 1985-86 Dollars)

State

1981-82 1984-85 1981-82 to 1984-85Change in

Percent Jf Percent of Change Percent ofNational NVional in National

Amount Expenditures Amount Expenditures Amount Expenditures

California 3,088 97.9 3,350 93.81 +262 '-4.16

Connecticut 3,686 116.94 4,876 136.54 +1,193 +19.60

Florida 2,825 89.63 3.335 93.39 4510 +3.76

Illinois 3,395 107.71 3,641 1r1.96 +246 -5.75

Louisiana 2,994 94.99 3,077 86.17 +83 -8.82

New Jersey 4,248 134.77 4,634 129.77 +386 -5.00

Ohio 2,881 91.40 3.380 94.65 +499 +3.25

South Carolina 2,205 69.96 2.864 80.20 +659 +10.24

Nation 3,571 3.152 +419

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Carrent Business.

Amount - Education expenditures per pupil (in constant 1985-86 dollars).

Percent of National Expenditures - Education expenditures per pupil as a percentage ofnationwide education expenditures per pupil for that year.

73

TABLE 11.3

PER CAPITA EXPENDITORES FOR SPECIALEDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES

1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR(In Dollars)

State Local State Federal Total

% ofNationalMedian

California 281 2,779 240 3,300 126.87

Connecticut 2,039 1,623 197 3,859 148.37

Florida 913 1,905 202 3,020 116.11

Illinois 2,508 2,101 372 4,980 191.46

Louisiana 552 2,274 179 3,005 115.53

New Jersey 1,416 2,334 259 4,009 154.13

Ohio 1,531 2,908 265 4,704 180.85

South Carolina 357 831 240 1,429 54.94

Median of All Statesand DC

775 1,568 258 2,601

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, 1989.

7 ,"1

Economic conditions in the case study States differed substantially from

one another in the post-P.L. 94-142 period. During that time, Connecticut and

Florida increased more in both per capita income and educational expenditures

per pupil than did the other six States.Conversely, Louisiana and Illinois

experienced greater declines on those indicators of economic well-being than

did the other States. However, current figures indicate that Connecticut, New

Jersey, and Illinois remain high in per cao)ta income and per pupil

expenditures.

Among the States visited, general economic trends were reported by State

officials to have influenced the ability of State education officials to

affect change in separate facilities. In Louisiana, and to a lesser extent,

in Illinois and Ohio, worsening economic conditions were rep3rted to have made

it difficult for the States to undertake significant education initiatives.

However, case study respondents in those States noted that economic

difficulties had in some cases improved interagency cooperation in the

provision of services to handicapped students. New Jersey and Connecticut,

on the other hand, have been experiencing economic growth and development

which are more conducive to programs of educational improvements. However,

as case-study respondents across the States noted, special education has not

always benefited as might be expected, since general education reform has

meant that monies sometimes have been concentrated on those initiatives.

B. STUDENT POPULATION

Since the population of students to be served determines the provision

of special education in any State, the size of the population age 0 through

21, the numk- of handicapped students served, are State entitlement age

111.42

75.

ranges are the basic parameters determining the number of students served in

the special edudation system as a whole.

In six of the eight States under study, the resident population aged

3 through 21 has declined since 1976-77. (See Table 11.4.) Only in

California and Florida have these populations increased, in California by

approximately 4 percent and in Florida ty approximately 11 percent. While not

all persons in this age range are in the educational system, case study

respondents in States with increases noted that this factor puts classroom

space at a premium for all programs, both regular and special education. In

Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio the population aged 3 through 21

declined by 14 percent or more; in Louisian. the population declined slightly

as was true of South Carolina,

The case study States served more handicapped students as a fraction

of their populations in 1986-87 than they had in 1976-77. (See Table 11.5.)

Currently between 5.2 percent and 8.6 percent of these States' 3 through

21 year old populations are served as handicapped. This compares with the

national rate of 6.5 percent. Louisiana and California served the fewest

students proportionately while Connecticut and New Jersey served the most

students proportionately. These differences are related to, although not

perfectl, ,:orrelated th, the varied entitlement age ranges of these States.

At the time of this study California and Louisiana provided special education

services to children from birth to 21 years of age, which results in a lower

ratio of total handicapped students served to the resident population age 3

through 21. (See Table 11.6.)

171.43

7G

TABLE 11.4

ESTIMATED RESIDENT POPULATIONAGE 3 THROUGH 21

(In Thousands)

Percent Change in

1976-17 1985-86Population to to

State 1976-77 1985-86 486-87 1986-87 1986-87

Ca14fornia 7,092 7,200 7,36:5 3.86 2.31

Connecticut 1,021 844 833 -18.41 -1.30

Florida 2,525 2,757 2,810 11.29 1.92

Illinois 3,802 3,316 3,255 -14.39 -1.84

Louisiana 1,444 1,427 1,414 -2.08 -0.91

New Jersey 2,398 2,063 2,010 -16.18 -2.57

Ohio 3,687 3,105 3,059 -17.03 -1.48

South Carolina 1,035 1,014 1,019 -1.55 0.49

Nation 72 782 67,877 67,558 -0.07 0.005

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, unpublished data.

NOTE: Not all members of the resident population age 3 through 21 areenrolled in educational programs.

111.44

TABLE 11.5

USER OF CHILDREN SERVED AS HANDICAPPEDAND TOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION

AGE 3 THROUGH 21

1976-77 and 1986-87

State

1976-77 1986-87

Children

Served asHandicamed

ResidentPopulation

HandicappedStudents Served

as a Percent ofResident Population

AWML3-21

ChildrenServed as

HandicappedResident

Population

Handl

Student=ledas a Percent of

Resident PopulationAce 3-2)

California 332.291 7.092.000 4.69 391.217 7.366.000 5.31

Connecticut 62.085 1.021.000 6.08 64.758 833.000 7.77

Florida 117.257 2.525.000 4.64 181.651 2.810.000 6.46

Illinois 229.797 3.802.000 6.04 248.169 3.255.000 7.62

Louisiana 86.989 1.444.000 6.02 73.852 1.414.000 5.22FiFiFi New Jersey 145.077 2.398.000 6.05 172.018 2.010.000 8.56

cn Ohio 166.101' 3.687.000 4.51 199.211 3.059.000 6.51

South Carolina 72.357 1.035.000 6.99 73.299 1.019.000 7.19

Nation 3.703.033 72.782.000 5.08 4.421.601 67.558.000 6.50

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. 1979 and 1988.

NOTE: Number of children served as handicapped was reported by the States to the U.S. Department of Education as of December 1st of each year.

`Mended report dated 3/23/77.

79

TABLE 11.6

ENTITLENEV AGE RANGES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

State Aae Ranae

California 0 through 21

Connecticut 3 through 21

Florida 3 through 21'

Illinois 3 through 20'

Louisiana 0 through 21

New Jersey 3 through 21

Ohio 5 through 21

South Carolina 5 through 21`

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Division of Assistance to the States,January 1988.

'From birth for children with visual, hearing, or physical handicaps or whoare trainable or profoundly mentally handicapped. Some districts provideservices through age 18.

'Includes also the period from 21st birthday to end of same school yearincluding the following summer term if designated in an IEP.

`Includes also 4 year old visually impaired and hearing impaire0 children.

111.46

C. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

This section includes a description of special education legislatian in

the case study States, particularly as it applies to separate facilities for

handicapped students.' It also includes a brief description of the impact of

advocacy group activity and litigation on separate facilities. This section

is introduced by a discussion of the general education reform movements in the

case study States.

1. General Education Reform

As with States across the nation (see Bodner, Clark, and Mellard, 1987),

the case study States had implemented notable reforms in education since the

1980's. Most of the reforms did not specifically address special education

nor 3eparate facilities for ha 'capped students; in fact, in several States,

the populations of these facilities have been exempted from change. For

example, students with severe handicaps are frequently exempted from testing

programs or are awarded special rather than regular diplomas. However, the

full impact of general education reform movements on special education and on

separate facilities for handicapped students has yet to be determined, as

States work to implement these reforms.

The following is a brief description of the main provisions of general

education reform in each case study State:

o Califcrnia passed the Hughes-Hart Educational Reform Actin 1983 which set Statewide graduation requirements,strengthened the State's discipline code, devoted more moniesto textbooks, increased funding for schools, raised teacnerstandards, and set up a Statewide accountability program.

111.47

Fl

o In 1986 Connecticut passed its Educational Enhaucement Actwhich, in addition to establishing accountability provisions,also inoreased teacher salaries and certification, inservice,and preservice requirements.

o Florida enacted RAISE (Raising Achievement in SecondaryEducation) in 1982 which established curriculum standards andgraduation requirements for all education pmgrams,

o Illinois passed its Educational Reform Act in 1985 whichdefined course requirements, specified a set of knowledge andskills necessary for students to master, increased standardsfor educa!ion personnel, and created a student assessmentprocess through proficiency testing.

o Louisiana established alternative programs for students havingproblems in school and enacted the Louisiana Quality ofEducation Act in 1985 which funds new and innovativeeducational programs. The State also created a Statewidetesting program which has yet to be implemented.

o In New Jersey, the Governor created a reform agenda in 1983called the Blueprint for Excellence which raised minimumteacher salaries, upgraded certification requirements,upgraded the State's basic skills test, and upgraded highschool graduation requirements.

o In 1983, QuIsti established new minimum standards for allchartered schoo's, in such areas as educational programming,ienth of sChool day, student-teacher ratios, staffdevelopment, and staff certification.

o In 1985 South Carolina's Educational Improvemet Act createda system of accountability in education. 'u requires theavailabill of compensatory and remedial services for allstudents, an exit exam for graduation, procedures forexpulsion and suspension, due process, and lengthening of theschool day.

2. Special Education Leoislation

With the exception of Louisiana, all of the case study States had a

mandatory special education law covering some handicapped students prior to

the passage of P.L. 94-142. Moreover, the period following the passage of

the Act was a period of legislative and regulatory activity as the States

111.48

attempted to conftrm with all the mandates of the new Federal legislation.

This period also saw specific actions taken in most of the States to assure

that students in separate facilities, particularly in those operated by other

State agencies, were being served in accordance with the Federal mandate.

All States have statutes specifically dealing with the provision of

special education services to handicapped students. The statutes generally

define eligibility for special education services, set up funding mechanisms,

provide for the formation of intermediate educational units or other

consortion of local districts in service delivery, and define SEA authority

over facilities operated by other State agencies. The most important impacts

of such statutes for separate facilities have been on placement decisions and

funding of placements in separate facilities.

California. Between 1975 and 1980, California implemented the California

Master Plan for Special Education which completely revamped special education

programs and legislation. The major changes were a movement from categorical

to non-categorical programming and revisions in the funding formula; the SELPA

concept, a regionalization of services, was also developed at this time. Some

provisions of this legislation have resulted in decreased use of separate

facilities.

Before implementation of the Master Plan, counties had a mandate to serve

the most severely handicapped students from small districts; they also had

taxing authority for construction of facilities, providing an incentive for

separate °isolated" schools. Under the Master Plan, counties were no longer

required to serve these students because of the regionalization of districts,

but many counties continued to do so in their separate facilities; all new

111.49

construction had io be approved by the State, and requests had to be

accompanied by eounts of students as justification. In 1986, legislation was

enazted prohibiting construction of self-contained facilities for the

handicapped and requiring that new facility construction be designed and

located on regular school sites to maximize interaction between handicapped

and nonhandicapped students. In-1986, legislation was also enacted requiring

the State special schools to charge sending districts 10 percent of the cost

of a student's program; previously, districts could send students at no

Connecticut. In 1967, a universal State mandate was passed for

all handicapped children. The legislation gave school districts the

responsibility for educating handicapped students thcn served in separate

facilities for the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. This occurred

simultaneously with the deinstitutionalization movewent in the State. In

1977, the State created a policy on legal and fiscal responsibility for

students in medical or psychiatric care facilities noting that these students

are the educational responsibility of their home school district.

The State issued several policy statements betwr-an 1080 and i984

clarifying issues related to the placement of students in separate faciliti(-s

for the handicapped. First, the State specified placement options and placed

time limits on the number of years students could be served in private and

out-of-State placements (3 and 2 years respectively); thereafter, annual

approval was required. Second, the State clarified the relationship between

the entity making placements in residential facilit;es and the reason for this

placement, maintaining that if an educational entity made the placement it was

111.50

to be presumed that the placement was made for educational reasons. Third,

a memorandum of'understanding v4th the Office for Civil Rights noted that if

a school district races a student in a program other than its own, it had

done so to carry out the requirement for a free, appropriate public education,

and therefore it must accept full financial responsibility for the placement.

In the 1985-86, school year legislation became effective which required

the State education agency to pay 100 percent of any special uducation costs

borne by districts that were over five times the average per punil cost in the

district. The legislation, known as the excess cost grant, recognized the

high costs of educating certain individual students, whether in district

programs or out-of-district placements. When the legislation was first

implemented, there was concern that it might encourage districts to place

students in separate facilities. However, this is not believed to have been

the result; an increase in the total amount of State funds paid to districts

since the legislation was enacted was generally attributed by SEA staff to

inflation affecting the costs of sp;:cial education in general and increasing

numbers cf applications for reimoursement as district staff become familiar

with the procedures.

Florida. Between 1968 and 1973 the mandate in Florida to serve students

who had previously not )een included in the public education system (the

largest propurtion of whom were trainable mentally handicapped students) was

reported to have encouraged construction of separate schools by districts.

:flirty five separate centers were built with general capital outlay State

funding. Since 1973 State policy has generally discouraged the use of

separate facilities.

111.51

Two major changes in Florida's special education system were legislated

in 1979; full incorporation of the profoundly handicapped into the education

system, and assumption of responsibility for the education of children in

State-operated facilities by local public schools.

In 1982, Florida's RAiSE legislation on general education reform set

specific standards and graduation requirements for all education programs;

curriculum frameworks and standards specific to special education have been

developed based on the RAISE requirements.

Illinois. Special education became mandatory in Illinois in 1965, and

the schools became responsible for serving students they had not previously

been required to serv-. Legislation, rewritten in 1978 in response to

P.L. 94-142, addressed special education costs for children attending private

schools, public out-of-State schools or private special education facilities

and created the Governor's Purchased Care Review Board. A section of-this

legislation also states that the resident school d:-trict is responsible for

the costs of tuition and r.,lated services, partially reimbursed by the State

according to a specific funding formula, when the full continuum of services

provided by the district can be shown to be inadequate to meet the needs of

the child due tc his or her handicapping condition and the school or facility

is in mmpliance 1,4ith the rules and regulations of the State Superintendent.

Louisiana. Louis.ana's special education law, the Exceptional Children's

Act, wls pcssed in 1977. It provides for services for three to 21 year olds

with services permitted for students less than three years old who have severe

problems which would be compounded if service were not provided before they

reached school 1,1e. This law provided for the establishment of the Special

111.52

S6

School District #1 (SSD #1) to provide education services in facilities

operated hy other State agencies. It also outlined the State's funding

formula for excepti)nal education.

New Jerse . In 1972, Chapter 212 of New Jersey's education law was

passed providing for general and special education for all children. In 1979

the New Jersey State Assembly passed the State Facilities Education Act; it

was designed to ensure that children in State facilities would receive the

same educational opportunities as students in public schools. The Act

repealed a 1972 statute which had created the Garden State School District,

a State School district for institutions.

The State Facilities Education Act 1) provided State aid for the

education of children in State facilities, 2) set up mechanisms for

determin4ng the district of residence for these children and for determining

financial responsibility for the funding of their education, and 3) provided

a stable financial base for these programs. In July 1980 the Department of

Human Services set up an Office of Education, as required by the Act, which

implements education programs for students in its facilities in compliance

with both New Jersey education code and EHA.

In 1987 legislation went into effect to implement an actual cost funding

system :or private facilities for the handicapped, permitting private separate

facilities to charge districts their.actual allowiale costs for educational

services. As expected, this funding change was associated with increased

costs for districts placing students in private facilities.

Ohio. In .967, Ohio established a system of comprehensive, cradle-to-

grave services for persons with moderate to profound mental retardation

111.53

administered by County Boards of Mental Retardation composed of citizens with

specific interet in mental retardation. The Boards were charged with

developing, operating, and funding programs for children and adults. In 1972,

the State universal sPecial education law was passed; however, students with

IQs under 50 remained the responsibility of the County Roards of Mental

Retardation. In 1976 enactment of Ohio's amendment to establish conformity

between Federal and Ohio special education law gave the State Board of

Education sole responsibility for all programs of special education in Ohio.

In 1977 the Stat Board of Education adopted a single set of standards for all

special education programs and personnel; all institutional and County Board

programs were also required to be chartered. However, the State departments

of mental retardation and mental health retained control of operating and

monitoring these same programs through already existing administrative

structures. In 1985 special education unit funding and responsibility for

monitoring of county board of MR/DD programs (but not State-operated

facilities) was transferred to the Ohio Department of Education.

South Carolina. The State's mandatory special education law was passed

in 1972; prior to this the State encouraged the creation of special education

programs but did not mandate them.

The State's recent education reform legislation, the rAucation

Improvement Act (EIA) of 1985, made two specific references to programs for

the handicapped: a Continuum of Care and the funding of programs for the

profoundly and trainable mentally handicapped. The State Board of Education

contracts with the Continuum of Care system to provide services for severely

emotionally disturbed students. The reform legislation also included thc

IiI.54

development of a formula to finance programs for the profoundly and trainable

mentally retarded, resolving an issue raised by a 1978 opinion by the State

Attorney General that the profoundly mentally handicapped were the

responsibility of local school districts not the Department of Mental

Retardation. However, funding for these students had not been included in

the State's finanCe act.

3. Advocacy Group Action and Court Cases

Interest groups have played an influential role in local, State and

Federal policymaking regarding the provision of education for students with

handicaps. They have initiated court cases on behalf of particular

handicapping populations and have focused attention on pol'cies affecting

where-students receive special education and related services (Weiner and

Hume, 1987). This section presents a description of the noteworthy court

cases in the case study Stees related to placement in separate facilitias and

describes how State policymakers view the impact of advocacy groL s on

placements and improvements in separate facilities.

.court Cases. Five of the eight case study States had one or more court

cases related to placement in separate facilities, while in South Carolina,

Florida, and New Jersey th:re has not been a far reaching case on placements

of students with handicaps in separate fac4lities. The major court cases in

the other States generally focused on use of separe.e facilities, particularly

residential facilities, operated by other State ageacii ;. The outcomes of

these cases had implications for piaceimit ,iecisions, the role of the LEA and

SEA in making and monitoring placements, and funding of the costs of

111.55

S9

educational versus residential components of placements. In no case, was the

court case specifically conaTned with educational practice or programming at


Advocacy Group Activities. The States have felt conflicting pressures

from advocacy groups interesi:ed in keeping separate facilities open with

"adequate" funding and from aAvocacy groups fighting to close separate

facilities to assure the least restrictive environment principle. In the

survey of State divisions of special education, State staff were asked to

assess the impact of various professional, interest, and advocacy groups on

changes in placement in separate fa lities and on improvements in educational

services in separate facilities.

Parent-advocacy organizations were viewed as having a great deal of

impact on changes inpj_s_eap_Latefacillacementsiities by State staffs in

California and Louisiana; only in Florida were they seen to have had little

or no impact. (See Table 11.7.) Survey respondents in California and

Louisiana also maintained that professional organizations held a notable impact

on separate placements while staff in Connecticut and South Carolina believed

they had at least some impact. However, no State reported unions or

association of teachers or related serrices personnel having an impact on

where students are placed. Leadership by individuals outside the SEA (such

as individual parents, special education leaders, and facility administrators)

was judged to have a great deal of influence on placement decisions by

Illinois and California and some impact by New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, and

Louisiana.

111.56

9t)

TABLE 11.7

IMPACT OF GROUPS ON CHANGES IN PLACEMENTS IN SEPARATE FACILITIES.AS REPORTED BY SEA SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISIONS

Parent

Advocacy

OrganizationsProfessionalAssocihtions

Unions or Associations of

Teachers or RelatedServices Professionals

Leadershipof

IndividualsOutsioe SEA

California Great Deal Grcit Deal Little/None Great Deal

Connecticut Same Some Little/None Some

Florida Little/None Little/None Little/None Little/None

Illinois Some Little/Ncre Little/None Great Deal

Louisiana Great Deal Great Deal Little/None Some

Nea Jersey Some Little/None Little/None Some

Ohio Some Little/None Little/None Some

South Caroliaa Some Scae Little/None Little/None

Average of all States' 2.3 1.7 1.1 1.8

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. The District of Columbia and all States except Hawaiiresponded to the survey.

g Little/None - 1

Same - 2Great Deal - 3

9 2

Q, I

Parent advccacy groups were reported to substantially influence

improvements in'separate facilities, in Fl,rida and California; for example,

in Florida parent advocacy groups were influeAial in generating State funding

for the ronstruction'of new facilities for trainable mentally handicapped

students, to replace buildings not designed for special education programs.

Only New Jersey saw parents groups as having little or no influence. (See

Table 11.8.) The impact of professional associations was judged to be slight

in New Jersey and Ohio, great in Louisiana and California, and moderate in the

other case study States. All States viewed unions or associations of teachers

or related services personnel as having little or no impact on improvements

in separate faci,ities. Leadership by individuals outside the SEA had a great

deal of impact on educational improvements in separate facilities according

to State staff in California and Illinois and some impact was reported by

staff in Connecticut, Louisiana, and New Jersey. New Jersey and Connecticut

also held that SEA personnel had a great deal of influence on the improvement

of services in separate facilities.

To summarize, unions or associations of teachers or related services

personnel were generally viewed as not influential in making changes at

separate facilities by respondents in the case study States. This was true

for both placement decisions and program improvements. Parent advocacy groups

and other individuals or agencies were seen as the most effective groups in

influencing changes in separate facilities. Individual leadership within the

State was also recognized as a factor affecting separate facilities.

111.58

TABLE 11.8

IMPACT OF GROUPS ON IMPROVEMENTS IM SEPARATE FACILITIFS,

AS REPORTED BY SEA SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISIONS

California

Connect icut

Florida

Illinois

Louisiana

New Jersey

tnto

Ohio

South Carolina

Average of all State$a

LeadershipParent Unions or Associations of ofAdvocacy Professional Teachers or Related Individuals

Organizations Associations Services Professionals Outside SEA

Great Da.:1 Great Deal Little/None Great Deal

Some Some Little/Noae Some

Great Deal Some Little/None Little/None

Some Some Little/None Great Deal

. Some Great Deal lit!:,ione Some

Little/None Little/None Little/None Some

Some Little/None Little/None Do Not Know

Some Some Little/None Little/None

2.2 1.7 1.2 1.8

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. The District of Columbia and all States exrept Hawaiiresponded to the survey.

Little/None 1

Same - 2

Great Deal - 3

95

D. SUMMARY

This chapter has examined how the case study States vary on several

dimensions of their economic and educational context. Some dimensions, such

as general economic climate and educational reform policies, may have only an

indirect impact cn separate facilities. Others, however, (including State

legislation. court actions, and advocacy group efforts) have specifically

addressed the role of separate facilities in the special education system.

Since the enactment of P.L. 94-142, all the case study States have passed

legislation to expand special education services to all students with

handicaps and to strengthen the State education agency's authority over all

special education progra particularly those at State-operated facilities.

More recently, all Statts have implemented some type of education reform

policies as well, although these generally do not directly apply to special

education programs or facilities. Most States have experienced litigation

related to the placement of students in separate facilities, and State

special education staff in most States agreed that parent advocacy groups,

professional associations, and/or indivichel leaders outside the State

educational system have made important contri,jtions to changes in placement

patterns and improvements in programming at separate facilities.

The dinnnsions on which the case study States differmost prominently are

general economic climate and population growth. (See Table 11.9.) SEA staff

in States experiencing substantial economic growth or that currently enjoy

relative prosperity were more optimistic about availability of resources to

foster and support improvements in special education programs and services at

111.60

96

TABLE 11.9

bISTRIBUTION OF CASE ADY STATESON ECONOMIC AND STUDENT POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

State

PerCapitaIncome

Change inPer Capita

Income

Expenditurefor

Education

Change inSchool-AgePopulation

Proportion School-AgedPopulation Served as

Handicapped -

California Above Average Above Average Average Increase Below Average

Connecticut Substantially Substantially Substantially Decrease Above AverageAbove Average Above Average Above Average

Florida Average Above Average Average Increase AverageHHH.0t-.

Illinois Average Average Average Decrease Above Average

Louisiana Below Average Below Average Below Average Small Decrease Below Average

New Jersey Substantially Substantially Substantially Decrease Above AverageAbove Average Above Average Above Average

Ohio Below Average Below Average Average Decrease Average

South Carolina Below Average Below Average Below Average Small Increase Abeve Average

SOURCE: Based on analyses presented throughout Chapter II.

98

separate facilities. Separate facilities in States where the school-aged

populations are Increasing in size were noted by respondents in those States

as important providers within the total special education system because of

pressure on classroom space in other educational environments. The next

chapter presents a description of the agencies involved in the delivery of

special education services in the case study States and the associated

patterns of service delivery in separate day and residential facilities for

the handicapped. It also examines the structure and functions of the division

within the State educational agency that is responsible for overseeing the

special education system.

!II.62

99

III. STRUCTURE OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS

State education agencies are charged with implementing State policy

concerning the delivery of special education services. They are the key

actors in the coordination of services and must assure State compliance with

EHA. Local school districts are the principal providers of special education

services to students. However, in most States, there is a history of special

education service delivery involving one or more State agencies such as

dEpaetments of mental retardation, mental health, children and family

services, and corrections. In some States, the State education agency also

provides some direct services to handicapped students through facilities

operated by the SEA.

This chapter takes three approaches to describing the special education

system as it relates to separate educational programs for students with

handicaps in the case study States. The chapter begins with a summary of the

most recent information on the patterns of student placement in separate

facilities in the case study States. Next, it describes the agencies and

organizations, public and private, that operate special education programs in

separate facilities. Finally, the chapter ends with a description of the

organizational units within the State education agencies that have

responsibility for overseeing the special education system, including separate

facilities.

A. PATTERNS OF SEPARATE FACILITY USE

The eight case study States exemplify different patterns of use of

separate facilities as reported in the 1986-87 annual reports from the States.'

1California is not included in this analysis because the State did notreport data comparable to those of the other States.

111.63

100

For all handicapping conditions, Ohio served the most students in separate

day and residehtial facilities as a function of the total number of

hanoacapped students served, almost 13 percent. (See Table INA.) New

Jersey served the next highest proportion of students in these facilities

followed in order by Louisiana, Connecticut, Illinois, and Florida. South

Carolina served the smallest proportion in separate schools, about 3 percent.

The States also differ in the percentage of students with various

handicaps served in separate facilities. (See Table 111.1.) In 1986-87,

South Carolina served approximately 9 percent of mentally retarded and multi-

handicapped students in separate facilities, while Florida, Louisiana, and

New Jersey served over 30 percent in such facilities. With the exception of

South Carolina, all of the case study States served a higher preportion of

mentally retarded and/or multi-handicapped students in separate facilities

than was true of the nation as a whole (14.46 percent), although Ohio's

proportion was only slightly higher than that for the nation.

South Carolina was again lowest among the case study States in serving

out 7 pe it of its -motionally disturbed students in separate facilities;

Florida served approx:mately 12 percent of its emotionally disturbed students

in these facilities. Florida and South Carolina served smaller proportions

of emotionally disturbed students in separate facilities, than was true for

the entire country (16.11 percent). In comparison, Ohio served 45 percent

and New Jersey served 38 percent of their emotionally disturbed students in


Illinois served approximately 12 percent of sensory impaired students in

separate facilities while South Carolina served about 14 percent. These

111.64

101

TABLE 111.1

PERCENT.OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS SERVED IN ALL SEPARATEDAY AND RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS BY HANDICAPPING CONDITION'

1986-87

MentallyAll Retarded/ Emotionally Sensory

State Conditions Multi-handicaooed Disturbed Impairments

California' .._ _ _ _ _ __

Connecticut 8.2 24.5 22.6 32.0

Florida 6.9 31.2 12.3 21.2

Illinois 7.5 23.8 26.8 12.3

Louisiana 8.8 31.2 22.2 25.7

New Jersey 10.4 42.3 37.7 31.4

Ohio 12.7 17.6 45.0 15.8

South Carolina 3.3 9.0 6.9 14.0

Nation 5.9 14.5 16.1 19.7


'Percentage is based on all students with a particular handicappingcondition.

'California did not report data in comparable form.

111.65

102

States and Ohio served i.-oportions smaller than the national figure (19.65

percent) in separate facilities, while Louisiana served 26 percent,

Connecticut served 32 percent, and New Jersey served 31 percent of sensory

tmpaired students in Separate facilities.

Among the case study States, Connecticut (53 percent) and New Jersey (46

percent) served relatively large proportions of their students placed in

separate facilities at private schools, while South Carolina (10 percent)

served the smallest proportion of students in private facilities (the national

figure was 34.5 percent). Historical patterns relating to the role of private

facilities in both general and special education were cited as a major factor

in current use of those facilities. It was also noted that private facilities

tend to serve the emotionally and behaviorally disordered populations which

have proven difficult for school districts to serve. In some States, private

facilities are viewed as a viable option in the continuum of placements for

special education service delivery. Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey are

examples of such States. Also, parochial (private) schools are widely used

in Louisiana and, until recently, a Nonpublic School Corporation funneled

State monies to students voluntarily enrolled in nonpublic schools. Now, when

students are placed in approved nonpublic schools, the student is the

responsibility of the placing school system.

In summary, most of the case study States served more handicapped

students in separate facilities during the 1986-87 school year than was true

for the nation as a whole. South Carolina, which served fewer students with

all handicapping conditions in separate facilities, is the exception.

Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Ohio generally served substantially

111.66

higher proportions of students with handicaps in separate facilities.

Connecticut and:New Jersey also used private facilities more than did the

other case study States and the nation.

B. PUBLIC AGENCIES PROVIDING SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

States utilize a number of local, regional, and State public agencies in

providing special education to handicapped students in a variety of settings.

This section focuses specifically on the role of these agencies in providing

educational services in separate facilities.

1. g_y_isilirp_sLocalPublicAencResorieialjducatior

Local education agencies (school districts) are responsible for providing

special education and related services to students with handicaps, and under

certain condition may elect to do so by placing students in separate

facilities including separate facilities operated by the district or by a

consortium of districts. As required by the provisions of the Education of

the Handicapped Act, responsibility for overseeing the education of all

special education studentg, including those educated outside of the district

or by other public agencies, is to be retained by the public education system,

primarily by local districts.

The number of operating school districts in the case study States ranges

from 1,025 in California to 66 in Louisiana (Illinois has 988, Ohio 6152,

New Jersey 592, Connecticut 169, South Carolina 91, and Florida 67). In most

of the case study States, some intermediate units, consortia of districts, or

regional or county agencies exist, either established in law or in practice,

2Since 1987, consolidation.; have resulted in 612 districts in Ohio.

111.67

104

-4;

for the provision of special education services. In addition, four States

(Louisiana, Connecticut, South Carolina, and California) have created special

school districts for education programs run in other agencies.

The remainder of-this section presents a State-by-State summary of the

local education system in each of the case study States, focusing on the role

of the system in providing special education services in separate facilities.

California has 58 county education offices in addition to its 1,028 local

education agencies responsible for the delivery of direct services to

handicapped students. Both types of agencies are considered to be local

agencies, although the county offices of education function more like

intermediate enits; that is they provide only very specialized types of

services, such as special education and education for school-aged children in

the custody of the juvenile court. The State Department of Education requires

local districts and county offices to join together to form special education

local plan areas (SELPAs) to ensure the availability of services for all

eligible handicapped children, there are currently 109 SELPAs in the State.

Prior to the State's Master Plan, counties in California had

responsibility for serving severely handicapped students for all local

districts with fewer than 8,000 students in average daily attendance.

Frequently special education developmental centers were built by the counties

and were purposely not located near regular school buildings so as not to

encroach on regular school grounds. Many of these facilities are still in

existence.

In Connecticut the 169 local education agencies or districts include

nineteen regional school districts, comprised of two or more towns which join

111.68

105

together to provide educational services, which are fiscally independent with

their own budgett and taxing authorities. In addition to the districts, three

State agencies, the Departments of Mental Retardation, Children and Youth

Services, and Corrections, operate special education programs that are

designated as special unified school districts, and are subject to the same

requirements as other school districts.

Apart from the local districts, regional school districts, and special

unified districts, Connecticut also has six Regional Education Service Centers

(RESCs) which are intermediate units which provide both special education and

general education programs and services. For the most part the RESC special

education programs serve very specialized popnlations through day programs,

many operated in separate facilities.

Florida has a county school system in which each of the 67 counties in

the State operates its own school district. The districts have primary

responsibility for the provision of special education and some operate

separate day schools. Children residing in State institutions are the

responsibility of the district in which the facility is located. LEAs are

also responsible for serving children in training schools for adjudicated

youth, whether or not they are handicapped.

Although there are no formal intermediate units, districts sometimes form

cooperative arrangements among themselves for the provision of services,

typically for students with low incidence handicaps.

In Illinois special education services are provided by either a special

education division within a single district, or some type of joint agreement

among districts. All together, there are 90 individual dIstricts and joint

111.69

FIG

7.1 ImildmwNrall

agreements offering special education services in Illinois. The joint

agreements themselves fall along a continuum from centralized to decentralized

joint agreements. Centralized joint agreements employ staff, assign Jtaff to

the local districts, and are responsible for service delivery, often in

separate facilities, to the more severely handicapped students from tile member

districts. In a decentralized joint agreement, most staff are hired by the

local districts and only certain services such as psychological or social work

services are provided jointly. Joint agreements may also purchase services

from a local district.

There are eleven regional programs for low incidence handicap groups,

including one in Chicago. These programs were developed initially to provide

programs and services to the low incidence population, primarily deaf,

visually impaired, and orthopedically impaired children, thus providing an

option in the continuum of services before consideration of residential

placement. The programs provide consultation, coordination of services,

resource identification, in-service training, high cost diagnostic services

generally not available in districts, and parent-infant (birth to three)

programs. The regional programs may also provide direct services to stuk;ents.

In Louisiana there are 64 parishes (school districts), two city school

systems, and the Special School District #1 (SSD #1) which administers all

education programs in residential schools operateo by Cie State departments

of mental retardation, ment31 health, and corrections. SSD #1 is considered

an intermediate school district. Some parishes in the State :Ave formed

collaboratives to serve low incidence populations such as the deaf or blin',

111.70

107

The State Board of Education has responsibility for students served in schools

operated by the'SEA.

New Jersu has a large number of local districts. In order to provide

special education services, particularly to low incidence populations, a

variety of intermediate units have been developed, including educational

service commissions, special services districts, and jointures. Educational

service commissions (ESCs) are to provide general support services to school

districts in all areas of education; they are part of the county offices of

education and thus under the supervision of the Division County and

Regional Services of the State Department of Education, rather than the

Division of Special Education. Most provide auxiliary services such as

transportation and materials although some provide direct services through

separate programs. The four county special services districts were created

to provide programs to handicapped students; they have specific legislative

authority and are officially school districts. They were mandated to serve

severely handicapped populations. Jointures were also created specifically

to serve handicapped students; only one is in existence.

In addition, there are county vocational schools in all but two of the

21 counties in New Jersey; they operate as separate school districts with

their own boards, and all offer special education services.

In !Qhi2, there are three basic types of school districts. Most are "local

districts" within the county school districts, but there are also city school

districts and exeg,ted village districts. Local districts within the counties

may provide their own special education programs, they may opt to share

programs, or they may participate in county board of education programs.

111.71

103

County programs typically provide psychological services, speech and language

therapy, and other related services. Small school districts typically look

to regional programs to serve students with low incidence handicaps; thus,

county programs most often serve emotionally disturbed and multihandicapped

students. Small districts also send students to nearby large districts for

services.

In South Carolina, local districts are primarily responsible for

providing special education; counties play no role in education. There are

multidistrict programs which are run by one district but attended by students

from, other districts; these programs are generally located in schools serving

non-handicapped students as well. In these arrangements, districts contract

with other districts for services after developing the child's IEP, and most

of these arrangements pertain to students with low incidence handicaps such

as those with visual and hearing handicaps and exist between two districts.

One consortium of thirteen districts exists.

2. Seoarate Facilities Ooerated by the Stets Education km/

In all but two States (South Carolina and Connecticut3), the SEA operates

its own separate facilities for students with handicaps. In California and

New Jersey separate facilities are operated by separate divisions within the

Department of Education coequal with the special education division. In both

States, schools for the deaf are operated by these divisions, two in

California and one in New Jersey. The Division of Special Schools in

California also operates a State school for the blind, and the Nea Jersey

'The State of Connecticut had operated the Mystic School for the Deafuntil the early 1980's.

111.72

109

Division of Direct Services also operates regional day schools to serve

severely handicipped students, particularly the multihandicapped, emotionally

disturbed, deaf, and deaf-blind populations. New Jersey is seeking to curtail

its involvement in diiect service delivery to students. Some of New Jersey's

regional day schools are operated by school districts, and the State is hoping

to extend this practice to the remainder of the schools. Louisiana created

the Special School District #1 (SSD #1) to operate educational programs in

facilities run by other agencies. SSD #1 is not currently part of the Office

of Special Educational Services but it is a separate agency in the Louisiana

Department of Education. The State education agency also operates a few small

programs at universities. Illinois' Deaf-Blind Center (Philip J. Rock School)

is operated by a local district under a contract from the Department of

Education. The Ohio SEA operates two schools, one for blind and the other for

deaf students. Data from the survey of special education divisions show that

State education agencies in twenty other States operate separate schools for

the handicapped. Most are schools for visually or hearing impaired students

and most are residential facilities.

3. Other State Aoencies Oberatino Separate Facilities

Historically, other State agencies have operated separate, usually

residential, facilities serving children and youthwith handicaps. Generally,

the main purpose of these facilities has not been educational, but instead

therapeutic, or at some times custodial. However, in the decades prior to the

passage of P.L. 94-142, many facilities incorporated education into their

mandate, for at least some of the school-age population. Presently, other

111.73

State agencies often provide special education to students, although all such

programs are under the general supervision of the State education agency.

All the case study States have independent State agencies or entities

which operate separate facilities, usually residential, for handicapped

persons in which separate educational programs are provided, either by the

operating agency or by another agency. Virtually all of the operating

agencies or the facilities themselves are separately funded by the State

leg 'ure which makes them fiscally independent of the State edication

agen iouth Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey

all t schools for the deaf and/or blind wbich are to some degree

operationely independent of the SEA spetial education division, and which

have been so for many years. Departments of mental retardation and/or mental

health run educational programs in separate facilities in South Carolina,

Ohio, New Jersey, and Connecticut. In Illinois, the separate residential

schools for the visually impaired, hearing impaired, and orthopedically

impaired are operated by the Department of Rehabilitation Services. The

Department of Mental Health operates educational programs in only two of its

facilities; in the others the educational program is provided by a local

district or other public education agency. In all States, oversight to ensure

compliancewith Federal and State regulations of educational programs provided

for ,uidents in State-operated separate facilities is the responsibility of

the SEA.

The Syrvey of SEA Special Education Divisions indicates that the

involvement of State agencies other than the SEA in the operation of separate

facilities is a universal pattern. In all States, at least one State agency

111.74

111

operated a separate day or residential facility for handicapped students. In

twenty-six of the non-case study Stttes, at least two State agencies other

than the SEA operate such facilities. MOst often these other agencies are

the departments of rm:ntal retardation, health and human services, ana

developmental disabilities. In addition, the schools for deaf and/or blind

students in several States are themselves independent State agencies.

The legacy of the role of other State agencies in providing special

education and other services to handicapped children has created some

poiitical and bureaucratic obstacles to State education agencies in their

attempts to extend State and Federal education regulations and standards and

to improve educational services in separate facilities for the handicapped.

4. Interaaencv Cooperation

Because two or more agencies are involved in providing special education

and related services to students with handicaps in each State, cooperation

across agencies has been seen as essential to assure that all students

received needed services and to avoid duplication of effort. Although,

P.L. 94-142 provided State education agencies with general supervisory

responsibility for educating studen with handicaps, regardless of the agency

providing the services, exercising this responsibility has often been

difficult since no specific mechanism was specified or required.' As noted in

the previous section, many State agencies other than the SEAs have a long

history of providing services to handicapped persons of all ages and had in

'In contrast, the provisions of P.L. 99-457 are much more specific indescribing the mechanisms by which early childhood program services are to becoordinated among various State agencies.

111.75

11 2

many cases developed their own standards and procedures for delivering and

evaluating special education services within their own separate facilities.

This history has created some problems in coordination of efforts between the

SEA and other State agencies. Interagency agreements related to the service

of handicapped students exist in all case study States, although in some

States (in particular Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina) unwritten

working relationships appear to predominate. In most of the case study

States, SEA staff noted that problems continued to exist despite interagency

agreements. In several States this has resulted in legislation either to give

the agreements the force of law or to create special interagency structures.

Several of the States have special interagency structures to facilitate

coordination of educational services to handicapped students. Frequently

these structures make placements, have financial responsibility for

placements, and must approve reimbursement rates or tuition/service charges.

Florida's SED Network is a multiagency network for severely emotionally

disturbed children ,,,hich is mandated to provide education, mental health

services, and, if needed, residential services to these students in local

districts. Illinois has created two special structures--the Residential

Services Authority and the Governor's Purchased Care Review Board. The first

agency has dispute resolution and planning responsibilities for behaviorally

and emotionally disordered students. The Governor's Purchased Care Review

Board approves allowable costs of private facilities for special education,

related services, and room and board. In Ohio, the Interdepartmental Cluster

of Services to Youth functions at both the local and State level; the purpose

is to deal with individual cases that are complex, costly, or beyond the

111.76

1 13

capabilities of individual agencies. In South Carolina, the Children's Case

Resolution System was created to place and fund the placements of hard-to-

place students. It is administered out of the Governor's Office; the System

assumes a moderator role between agencies.

In New Jersey, South Carolina, and Florida, cross agency committees,

councils and task forces are used extensively. Even in States with a number

of formal interagency agreements, such as Louisiana, cross agency committees

are also used. Special education staff in several States noted that these

mid-management working relationships tended to be very effective in

facilitating changes in separate facilities, with or without formal

interagency agreements.

5. Summary

In all of the case study States, local school districts have primary

responsibility for special education. While formal structures do not exist

in all case study States (see Table 111.2), each State provides, at a minimum,

informal arrangements for districts to join together for serving students with

handicaps, most often students with low incidence, severe, and/or multiple

handicaps. Sometimes these arrangements involve the operation and/or use of

separate facilities. As also shown in Table 111.2, all but two State

education agencies in the case study States operate s4arate facilities,

although in New Jersey some are run under contract to local districts as is

the one such facility in Illinois. Connecticut and South Carolina have no

SEA-operated separate facilities for students with handicaps.

111.77

.A0.

115

TABLE 111.2

SEA AND OTHER STATE AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN pRomoo OF SPECIAL,EIMICATION IN SEPARATE FACILITIES IN CASE STUDY STAIES

Involvement of Intermediate Unite.

Consortia of Districts, or *WelAoencies in Provision of Soedial Edwation

Provision of DirectServicei to Koodkappod

StOdoots by SEA

Responsibility forEducation at state.Onergted FaCilities

FormalInteragencyStflictures

California Special Education Local Plan Areas Yes State-Agency No(formerly Counties) (schools for deaf and blind) Operating Facility

Connecticut Regional School districts and No State NoRegional Educatice Service Centers Operatinntnity

As Unified School

Districts'

Florida Consortia of districts Yes Local District Where SED Network(schools for deaf and blind) Facility Is Located

Illinois Joint agreements and Regional programs Yes

(deaf-blind center operated byState Agency ,

Operating Facility'Purehased CarsReview Board

LEA under contract with SEA) ResidentialServicesAuthority

Louisiana Consortia of districts Yes Single Unified No(special education programs inall State-operated facilitiesthrough the unified schooldistrict)

School Districtunder SEA

New Jersey Educational Service Commissions,Special Services districts, andJointures

Yes

(school for deaf and regional dayschools, most of the latteroperated by L(A* under contracts

with SEA)

Ohio County Boards of Education YesCounty Boaris nf Mental Retardation/ (schools for deaf and blind)

Developmental Disabilities

South Carolina

State AgencyOperating Facility

No

State Agency Interdepartment

Cluster of Servicesto YOuth

Operating Facility

Consortia of districts No State Agency

Operating Facility Resolution SystemChildren's Cass hG /

SOURCE: Provided by SEA staff during site visits conducted in 1987.

'Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation is in the process of transferring responsibility to local school districts.

'For most Department of Mental"Nealth facilities, the educational program is provided by local districts or other public agencies on a voluntary basis.

All States make arrangements for the education of handicapped students

placed in facilities operated by State agencies other than the SEA. (See

Table TII.2.) In six .case study States (California, Connecticut, New Jersey,

Ohio, and South Carolina) the non-education State agencies provide special

education services when handicapped students are placed in their facilities.

In Illinois, while the facilities operated by one State agency provide the

educational program as well, local districts and other public education

agencies provide education to students in most facilities operated by another

State agency. In Florida, responsibility for the educational program in

State-operated facilities goes to the district in which the facility is

located; in Louisiana, a unified district operated by the SEA has this

responsibility.

In all case study States there was recognition of tension between State

agencies involved in the provision and supervision of special education

programs in separate facilities. In several States (Illinois, Ohio, and South

Carolina) this has resulted in the creation of formal interagency structures,

focusing specifically on placement and funding issues. Other formal

structures dealing with issues of coordination and communication among State

agencies include a single ,lified school district under the SEA (Louisiana)

and a voluntary network model for planning and delivering services to specific

categories of students (Florida). Informal interactions among State agency

staff at the mid-manager level were also reported to be effective in several

States without more formal structures (particularly in Connecticut and

New Jersey).

111.79

1 7

The case study States provide examples of the wide variety of public

special education systems. There are some in which a number of local,

intermediate, and State agencies operate special education programs in

separate facilities (Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois). In others, the

public system of special education in separate facilities is comprised of a

small number of State and regional agencies (California and Ohio). And, in

still others special education in separate fac:lities is largely the

responsibility of State agencies (in most cases, the non-education agency

operating the facility), although consortia of districts say be formed and may

elect to operate separate programs (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina).

Later chapters will discuss how the structure of the special education

systems in States is related to how SEA procedures are implemented and their

reported role in influencing instructional practices at separate facilities.

Among the greatest impedinents to ;implementing change in separate facilities,

as perceived by State respondents, were the jurisdictional barriers betweeL

State agencies operating separate facilities. The operation of separate

education facilities by )ther State agencies with independent financial

authority has hindered State education agencies in their attempts to bring

about change in these facilities. Although interagency agreements and/or

structures exist, joint planning is often difficult, and jurisdictional

conflicts remain.s Historical and political inertia have proven added barriers

to change in these relationships.

6Staff in several States noted that P.L. 99-457 with its requirements forinteragency cooperation could create an atmosphere in which some of theseconflicts and barriers would be lessened.

111.80

.1 S

C. STATE DIVISIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Each case itudy State has at least one independent division (office,

bureau, or department) of the State education agency devoted to special

education. In addition, two case study States, California and New Jersey,

each have a separate division which administers progrcas in separate

facilities. Two key dimensions of the organization of the State special

education divisions are described below: the organizing structure of the

divisions and the distribution of staff across administrative functions.

Among the case study States, all of the special education divisions are

organized primarily by function rather than by geographic regions or by

handicapping condition (i.e., program services, compliance, administration).

According to the Survey of SEA Special EducaLion Divisions conducted in 1988:

this is also generally true of special education divisions in the other States

(37 of the other States reported being organized by function, although some

had other organizing features as well). In Florida, the)4 are also

specialists for specific handicapping conditions designated witnin some

functional subdivisions. The California and New Jersdy offices have

geographic as well as functional subdivisions, while South Carolina has

subdivisions based on handicapping condition. The Illinois division is

organized on all of these dimensions. The number of units within the special

education divisions ranges from two in South Carolina and Illinois to six in

California. None of the special education divisions have units specifically

dealing with separate facilities.

Most special education divisions in the case study States have not

changed greatly in structure over the last ten years. Two States, New Jersey

111.81

1 1 9

V'and California, have experienced frequent reorganizations of their special

education units. In New Jersey, special education bees,* a separate division

in 1983 and shifted from a regionalized to a centralized staff at the same

time. In California, operation of the SEA-ope-ated special schools became

the responsibility of a separate division in the mid-1980's.

State special education division staffs perform various functions as they

implement and coorAinate special education policy. These functions include

compliance monitoring, grants management., technical assistance, personwil

development and training, ogram and curriculum development, interagency

liaison, and administratior ind planning. Based on information from the

Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, the States appear to vary a great

deal in terns of allocation of special education staff to these functions (see

Table 111.3).

California, Connecticut, and Florida p'ace particular emphasis in terms

of allocation of staff time on a combination of technical assistance,

program/curriculum development, and staff development activities. In

California it was estimated that half of all staff time is devoted to

technical assistance and training, and approximately one-fifth of staff time

is devoted to program and personnel development combined. In addition to the

staff involved in in-service training, the Connecticut pupil personnel group

provides support services to local districts in a broad range of areas,

including school health, school guidance, school psychology, social work, and

speech and language services, to help districts meet the specific needs of

individual students as well as special education students in general. Florida

111.82

12t)

TABLE 111.3

PERCENT OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISION STAFF TINE IT FIINCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Adeinistretlos and Massing, Cam Hamaand Grants Ilmannant Ilcsithrias TechavirarAgsistall7.- NahIennut

InteragencyLiaison Other

California 15.5 12.1 71.7 1.7 0.0

Connecticut° 4.5 31.8 54.5 OAT 9.1P

Florida 20.0 14.3 62.9 2.9 0.0

Illinois 27.3 22.7 47.7 2.3 0.0

Louisiana 5.6 16.7 14.8 22.2 40.7e

New Jersey 23.7 20.3 30.5 5.1 20.3°

Ohio 39.9 54.1 2.4 3.6 0.0

South Carolina 29.7 32.5 31.3 7.5 0.0

Median of Nation 18.2 18.9 41.7 4.4 0.0

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of thisresponded to thesurvoy.

aThese figures represent nejor staff assignment for a gives individual, not his or her"monitarinr also work on special technical assistance activities and staff frau other

bDue process.

'Pupil appraisal and support and fiscal management.

°Mediation.

°Technical assistance is provided as part of compliance monitoring in Ohio.

121

study. The District of Columbia

sole activity. For example, allunits assist is momitorimg.

and all States except Remit

staff reported under

122

allocated about one third of its staff time each to program and curriculum

development aneto personnel development.

Connecticut, South Carolina, and especially Ohio place great emphasis

in the allocation of staff on monitoring. Almost three-fifths of staff time

in Ohio was devoted to compliance monitoring and to follow-up technical

assistance. Connecticut and South Carolina each allo:ted about one-third ot

staff time to monitoring activities. Illinois allocates almost one-quarter

of special education division staff time to each of the following: program

and curriculum development, technical assistance, monitoring, and

administration and planning.

The functions carried out by the special education divisions in Louisiana

and New Jersey are somewhat unique. Louisiana noted that four tenths of staff

time was devoted to pupil appraisal and support services and fiscal management

(listed as "Other" in Table 111.3), while about one fifth of staff time was

devoted to interagency coordination. In New Jersey, about one fifth of

staff time was used for each of the following: compliance monitoring,

administration and planning, and other activities such as mediation.

Table 111.4 summarizes the major distinguishing features of the case

study States in how their special education divisions are organized. As will

be discussed in later chapters, these organizational features are associated

with how specific procedures (such as monitoring and 4-Ihnical assistance) are

implemented in the States.

111.84

P 4", 0

TABLE 111.4

WJOR ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES OF DIVISIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CASE STUDY STATES

California

Oroanizational Basis Functional Priorities. as Indicated bv Disliribution of Staff

Function and geography, with spp:rate Technical assistance

division verating special schools

Connecticut Function Technical assistance and Compliance monitoring

Fiorida Function, with program specialists for Program and Personnel development aei Technical assistanCe

handicapping Condition

Illinois Function, geography, and handicapping Technir,a1 assistance and Program development

condition

Louisiana Function Pupil appraisal and Interagency liaison

co New Jersey Function and geography, with separate Program and Personnel development, Compliance monitoring, and Mediationun division oparating special schools and

regional staff involved in LEA monitoring

Ohio Function Campliance monitoring (utich includes Technical assistance) andPlanning and managesent

South Carolina Function, with subunits organized around Compliance monitoring, Program and Personnel development, Technical

handicapping condition assistance, and Planning and management

SOURCE: Based on analyses presented in Chapter III.

1" tt 2 1 2 5

THE STUDY OF PROGRAMS OF INSTRUCTIONFOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND MUTHIN DAY AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

VOLUME III:STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

AT SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

PART TWO: STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PROCEDURES

IPC

I. SEA PROCEDURES: SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING

In almost every State,' Federal, State and local funds are combined to

support the costs of sPecial education and related services. Of the estimated

$14.2 billion expended during 1984-85 on programs for children with handicaos,

about 8 percent came from Federal sources, while State and local governments

paid 57 percent and 35 percent respectively (U.S. Department of Education,

1989; see also Mbore, 1988). While the Federal share of special

education expenditures is relatively minor, Federal assistance programs have

played a major role over the past decade in influencing State efforts to meet

the needs of children with handicaps. During this time period, State agencies

displaced local governments as the primary contributor to the special

education system, although the proportion of State versus local effort varies

from State to State.

This chapter focuses on two aspects of SEA funding procedures: (1) the

methods used by States to allocate resources for educational programs for

handicapped children; and (2) State use of Federal funds in the provision of

special education and related services.

A. STATE FUNDING PROCEDURES

All States provide funds to school districts for the provision of special

education programs. State special education funding programs have the

capacity to influencE programs at the local level as they can affect the

number and type of children served as handicapped, the type of programs and

'Both Hawaii and the District of Columbia operate a single school districtwhich is fully funded by the State.

111.87

1 27

services provided by local school districts, the duration of time students

spend in special education program*, Oe placement of students in various

programs, and class size and caseloads, as well as administrative processes

such as recordkeeping and repeting, 7nd program and fiscal plan! ing.

Further, funding mechanisms can be used to implement State priorities and

initiatives by, for example, eariorking funds for specific activities,

establishing service priorities, providing incentives to develop specific

types of programs, or instituting disincentives to discourage agencies from

serving students in particular placements.

State special education funclittg programs are comprised of a variety of

components. The primary emphasis of these funding programs is the formula

used to distribute funds for students served in local school district

programs, where the vast majority of students are served. Variations on this

formula or separate mechanisms are used to distribute funds for students

served in separate facilities in out-of-district placements, including

placements in regional or intermediate service districts, SEA-operated

programs, programs run by other State agencies, and private schools. Each of

these components of funding is described below.

1. Fundina of LEA Placements

The major component of State special echLation funding programs is the

formula used to distribute resources to school districts for the provision of

educational programs to children with handicaps. For the most part, States

do not use this component to differentially impact programs in separate

facilities operated by LEAs. That is within each State, all spec,4i

111.88

education programs operated by an LEA are funded under the same special

education funding mechanism.

Across States, the funding formulas used to calculate the financial needs

of LEAs are based on three primary factors--resources (personnel, classrooms,

or instructional units), students, or costs. There are also three mechanisms

used to allocate resources; special education funds can be distributed on a

flat grant, percentage, or weighted basis. As indicated by Moore, et. al.,

(1982) ano shown on Table 1.1 these two dimensions could be combined to form

nine different types of funding formulas, but only six are practical and only

five are actually used--(1) flat grant per teacher or classroom unit, (2)

percentage or excess cost, (3) percentage of teacher/personnel salaries,

(4) weighted pupil formula, and (5) weighted teacher/classroom unit formula.

Note that while a flat grant per student is a viable option and is used to

distribute EHA-B funds to States, no States exclusively use this type of

formula to distribute funds to school districts for special education

programs.

While these two dimensions are useful for forming a classification scheme

there are many other factors important to funding which cut across these

dimensions, such as the use of pu, il-teacher ratios or adjustments for

district size. The various combinations of these factors make each State's

funding formula virtually unique. Thus, while the State funding formulas can

be grouped according to the classification scheme, in practice they are not

really similar. For discussion and comparison purposes, however, it is useful

to classify States according to this framework.

111.89

129

TABLE 1.1

. TYPES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE FORMULAS

Students

Resources

Costs

Fundina Mechanism

Flat Grant/Student Pupil Weighting

Flat Grant/Classroor Percentage Weight( Teacheror Teacher Unit of Personnel or Cl sroom

Salaries Un t

PercentageCost or

Excess Cost

SOURCE: Wore, Walker, and Holland, 1982.

111.90

13t)

Flat Grant Der Teacher or Classroom Unit. Using this type of funding

mecham. the State provides to each district a fixed amount of money for

each special education teacher employed or for each classroom unit needed.

Regulations typically.define pupil-teacher ratios or class size and caseload

standards, either by handicapping condition or by type of program (e.g.,

resource room).

Nationally, ten States reported using this type of funding formula on

the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions conducted as part of this study.

Among the case study States, California and Illinois employed this approach.

A description of the funding formulas used in these two States illustrates the

variation that exists within funding formula categories.

In California, funds are distributed as a flat grant per allowable unit,

defined for fiscal purposes only by s'Aident-teacher ratios for three types of

instructional settings (special day classes, resource specialist programs,

and designated instruction and se;vices). (Class sizes and student-teacher

ratios in actual instructioual settings vary, allowing flexibility in meeting

individual student needs.) State special education funding may be received

for a maximum of ten percent of the total kindergarten through 12th grade

enrollment. Districts are also restricted as to the percentage of students

that can be served within the three types of instructional settings. The

amount of fuads received per instructional unit differs for each school

district and is adjusted annually for inflation. LEAs are also entitled to

funding for support services which covers direct and indirect operating costs.

Additional funds arc available for districts with special circumstances, such

111.91

431

as sparsity, density or enrollment growth. Separate provisions exist for

fundidg of students placed out-of-district.

The funding formula utilized in Illinois provides a flat grant to school

districts for the salaries of special education personnel. LEAs are

reimbursed $8,000 each for professional staff (e.g., certified teacher,

special education director, related services provider), the lesser of one-half

of the salary or $2,800 annually per non-certified employees, one-half of the

salary up to $400 annually per child for each reader for the blind, and one-

half of the salary up to $1,000 annually per child or $8,000 per teacher for

hospital/homebound instruction for physically handicapped children. The SEA

also pays up to $2,000 per student for students who have extraordinarily high

cost needs, to assist local districts in the costs of local programs for these

students. However, separate funding mechanisms are used for students placed

in private facilities and in State-operated programs (see Section 2 below).

The private school funding formula includes provision of the full cost for

room and board, if a student is placed residentially. In most cases, this can

result in less cost for the district if the student is served in a private

facility. In addition, the State pays nearly all the costs for most children

in State-operated facilities; the State-operated separate facilities are 100

percent funded by the State with the exception of transportation which is

reimbursed to districts by the S. ,te at 80 percent of the costs. SEA

respondents in Illinois reported that the formula used to fund LEA placements

in Illinois may encourage placements in private or State-operated facilities

as most of the costs of these placements are funded by the State at a rate

that provides a higher share ,an for programs operated by the LEAs.

111.92

1-32

Except for specified pupil-teacher ratios which typically vary by

setting, the flat grant per teacher or classroom unit formula funds all LEA

placements simdlarly and would not in and of itself impact the placement of

students in separate LEA schools. However, use of this funding mechanism is

often accompanied by separate funding provisions for students placed outside

the LEA. Those funding provisions could provide an incentive for mit-of-

district placements if such placements are funded at a higher State share than

programs operated by LEAs.

Percentaae or excess cost. Under a percentage or excess cost formula,

districts are reimbursed by the State for a percentage of the costs of

educating children with handicaps. Reimbursement may be provided for a

percentage of the full costs or for the costs which are above the average per

pupil costs for general education programs. Reimbursable costs usually must

be in approved categories and cost ceilings may apply. Across all States,

twelve report using a cost-based formula.

One case study State, Connecticut, administers an excess cost

reimbursement formula. Under that formula, school districts are reimbursed

for between 30 and 70 percent of their net cost of special education.' The

percentage reimbursement recebed by each town (district) is based on a

complex general educatioo equalization aid formula which ranks towns on a

number of factors including their ability to pay for education based on their

assessed property values. Thus, the wealthiest towns might receive 30 percent

of their net cost from the State as a "special education grant" and must pay

'In 1989 the range for State reimbursement was extended to between 20 and70 percent of net special education costs, effective in the 1989-90 schoolyear.

111.93

70 percent from local revenues, while the least wealthy districts can receive

as much as 70 percent of their excess costs and contribute only 30 percent

from local sources. The average reimbursement in 1967 was 56 percent. In

addition, Connecticut provides 100 percent reimbursement for special education

students whose program, regardless of its setting, costs more than five timci

the district's average per pupil costs.

As the flat grant, the percentage end/or excess cost type of funding

formula does not distinguish among placements for reimbursement purposes.

Thus, there is likely to be no elfferential impact on separate facilities.

Percentaoe of Teacher/Personnel Salaries. Using this type of formula,

the State provides districts with a percentage of the salaries of special

education teachers and/or other special education personnel. The percentage

may vary by personnel type. For example, the salaries of certified teachers

may be reimbursed at a rate of 70 percent, while aides' salaries may be

reimbursed at a rate of only 30 percent. Pupil-teacher ratios are typically

specified under this formula type. Minimum State salary schedules may also

be included in the formula specifications. Across all States, five States

employ a percentage salary approach to funding school district special

education programs.

Two case study States, Louisiana and Ohio, administer this type of

funding formula. In Louisiana, the formula is based on a minimum foundation

program, with funding provided for personnel employed, using A State minimum

salary schedule with -ijustments for fringe benefits. The number of teacher:

funded is based on pupil-teacher ratios. Special education supervisors are

funded at the rate of one per district; aides, speech therapists, and

111.94

occupational and physical therapists are funded based on staff-student ratios;

assessment teachers, school psychologists and school social worlwrs are funded

based on the total number of regular and special teachers in public schools

and on the membership in non-public schools; and special education bus

attendants for buses on which eligible children are transported are funded at

a fixed rate for all approved attendants.

In Ohio, funding is based on special education units, wbich are defined

as instructional programs, most of which require a teacher Ind a minimum

number of students. Unit definitions vary according to the disability

classification of students and the specific types of programs 41 which they

receive services. Pupil-staff ratios are specified. Nineteen different types

of special education units are funded, with unit funding directly linked to

a State miniium salary schedule designed to reflect staff training and

experience. Reimbursement is also available through State funds for some

individual services (e.g., tutoring, attendant services, interpreter services)

that are provided to identified students.

The percentage salary formula has the potential to impact program

placement if it is used to disproportionately reimburse specific special

education categories (e.g., 60 percent of resource room teachers, 50 percent

of separate school teachers).

Weighted Pupil Formula. With this funding approach, the State pays

districts a multiple of average per pupil costs or other base rate, depending

on students' handicapping condition and/or program. This type of formula may

include other categorical programs in addition to special education (e.g.,

bilingual or compensatory education) and may also provide funding for general

111.95

1 3 5

education programs, although some States choose to weight only the categorical

programs. Pupaweighting formulas are more often than any other funding

method; across all States, nineteen utilize this method.

Three case studiStates, Florida, New Jersey, and South Carolina use a

weighted pupil formula to distribute special educaticn funds to school

districts, although the formulas vary dramatically among the States,

particularly in the pupil weights used. The weighting schemes used in each

of the three States are arrayed in Table 1.2.

In Florida, the weighted pupil formula is part of the Florida Education

Finance Program (FEFP) which funds all education programs in the State. FEFP

funds are generated by multiplying ,he number of full-time equivalent (FTE)

students in various types of educational programs by cost factors to obtain

weighted FTEs. Weighted rTEs are then multiplied by a base student allocation

which is established annually by the legislatcre. Program cost factors are

also determined annually by the legislature.

As shown on Table 1.2, for 1988-89 the special education cost factors in

Florida ranged from a low of 2.182 for educable mentally handicapped students

to a high of 13.946 for part time visually handicapped students. Students may

be weighted in more than one category to a maximm of 25 hours per week if

they receive services under more than one category. The FEFP also takes into

account differences in local property tax bases, cost factors, cost

differentials and differences in per student cost for equivalent educational

programs due to sparsity or density of student population. The funds for

special education programs are not additional to general education aid.

.11.96

FLORIDA

TABLE 1.2

WEIGHTING FACTORS USED BY CASE STUDY STATESUSING WEIGHTED PUPIL FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING

STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDS

Educable Natally Handicapped

Trainable Mentally Retarded

Physically Handicapped

Physical and Occupational Therapy (Part-Time)

Speech, Language and Hearing (Part-Time)

Speech, Language and Hearing

Visually Handicapped (Part-Time)

Visually Handicapped

Emotionally Disturbed (Part-Time)

Emotionally Disturbed

Specific Learning Disability (Part-Time)

Specific Learning Disability

Hospital and Homebound (Part-Time)

Profoundly Handicapped

SOUTH CAROLINA

2.182

3.010

3.812

8.543

5.901

3.476

13.946

4.989

4.0G5

2.986

3.402

2.241

10.592

4.513

Educable Mentally Handicapped 1.74

Learning Disabled

Trainable Mentally Handicapped 2.04

Emotionally HandicappedOrthopedically Haodicapped

Visually Handicapp0Hearing Handicapped

2.57

Speech Handicapped 1.90

Homebound 2.10

111.97


NEW JERSEY'

Educable Mentally Retarded .41

Trainable Mentally Retirded .70

Orthopedically Handicapped .74

neurologically Impaired .48

Perceptually Impaired .21

Visually Handicapped 1.97

Auditorially Handicapped 1.33

Communication Ha- 'icapped .61

Emotionally Dist.. bed .69

Socially Maladjusted .45

Chronically Ill .54

Multiple Handicapped .77

Preschool Handicapped .31

Resource Room .60

Private Schools for the Handicapped .84

(Plus cost factor of handicapped program above)

Supplementary and Speech Instruction .08

Homebound Instruction (No. of Hours x Factor) .005

State Facilities

Residential Facilities for Retarded 2.07

Day Training Center 2.85

Residential Youth Center 1.67

Training School or Correctional Facility .50

Child Treatment Centers of Psychiatric Hospital 1.24

SOURCE: Information provided by the States during 1987 site visits.

'Note that in New Jersey the special education funds distributed according tothese weights are additional to funds under the education funding program,while in Florida and South Carolina they are not.

II i

I as

In South Carolina, the pupil weighting formula is also tied to germal

education fundihg. A base student cost is established annually by the

legislature with weights for handicapped students and for vocational programs.

Also, kindergarten, primary, and high school students are weighted more

heavily than are elementary pupils. The weights, displayed on Table 1.2,

range from a low of 1.74 for educable mentally handicapped and learning

disabled students to a high of 2.57 for visually handicapped and hearing

handicapped students. The formula also establishes maximum class sizes. A

special appropriation from the legislature is made annually for programs for

trainable mentally retarded students and for the profoundly mentally retarded.

New Jersey also administers a weighted pupil formula to distribute State

aid for special education, but the funds are additional to general education

aid. Weights are based primarily on handicapping conditions, but also address

program placements, as indicated in Table 1.2. The weights are multiplied by

pupil incidence in each of the programs. The resulting "categorical aid

units" are multiplied by the State base allocation to determine the level of

State special education funding. Weights are adjusted annually. For 1988-89,

the weights for handicapping conditions ranged from a low of .21 for the

perceptually impaired to, a high of 1.97 for the visually handicapped.

Pupil weighting formulas have the potential to encourage student

placements in higher mimbursement categories and can be used to reinforce

less restrictive settings if they include differential weights for such

placements.

Weiahted Teacher/Classroom Unit. Under this formula type the State pays

districts an amount based on a multiple of allowable teacher or classroom

111.99

units. Weights may vary by handicapping condition and/or program, and units

may be constrained by pupil-staff ratios. For example, the State may fund one

staff unit for each five severely handicapped students and one staff unit for

each 45 speech impaiied students. This type of formula can also provide

placement incentives or disincentives if it differentially reimburses specific

categorias. Among all States, only two use this approach; none of the case

study States employ this type of funding formula.

Summary. The funding systems developed by States to distribute resources

to LEAs for the operation of special education programs vary substantially

from one State to another. However, there are five general funding approaches

currently in use--(1) flat grant per teacher or classroom unit, (2) percentage

or excess cost, (3' percentage of teacher/personnel salaries, (4) weighted

pupil formula, and (5) weighted teacher/classroom unit formula.

Using data reported on the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions,

Table 1.3 shows the number and percent of StP.tes using each of the five

formula types. The table indicatei that the weighted pupil formula is the

most common funding mechanism used. This type of funding formula reflects the

differences in the costs of serving children with varying handicaps. However,

the use of a formula which provides variation in funding based on handicapping

condition has been criticized as reinforcing labelling and has the potential

to encourage districts to classify students into higher reimbursement

categories. Thus, some States have begun to shift from weighting of the

individual handicap of the student to a weighting scheme which addresses the

different programs they receive. Such a weighting scheme could be used to

encourage or discourage districts from placing students in separate

111.100

14 u

TABLE 1.3

FUNDING FORMULA USED TO DISTRIBUTE SPE ,ALEDUCATION FUNDS TO LEAS

(a)

Flaatt

Percentagecif Excess

(c)

l%

(d)

NeighrdIle ghted

Teacher/ (f)

Case Study States

California

Connecticut

X

xl

Florida X

Illinois x°

Louisiana X

New Jersey X

Ohio X

South Carolina X

Total 2 1 2 3 0 0

(25%) (12.5%) (25%) (37.5%)

Total (N.50) 10 12 5 19 2 2

(20%) (24%) (10%) (38t) (4%) (4%)

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, ccmducted in 1988 as part of this study. The District of

Columbia and all States except Hawaii responded to the survey.

'Percentage allocation formula for all special education costs plus excess cost grant for students whose program

costs more than five times the average par pupil cost.

°The SEA also pays up to $2,000 per student for students who have extraordinarily high cost needs.

4Li

facilities, but would likely have little to no impact on peograms in these

facilities. Similarly, any funding formula which incorporates a differential

reimbursement rate for :pecific types of placements has the capacity to

influence the rate of 'placement in separate faciltdes. However, the type of

formula used to fund LEA special education programs is not likely to impact

the programs offered in LEA separate facilities.

2. Fundtmq of Out-of-District Placements

Data from the IgnItLhanoLBALIJ&Sanin_ow'ss (U.S. Department of

Education, 1988) indicate that during the 1985-86 school year the overwhelming

majority of handicapped students (92 percent) are served in school buildings

with their nonhandicapped peers. Occasionally, however, students cannot be

appropriately served by LEA programs and must receive special education and

related services in programs outside the school district. In addition, some

students are placed in non-LEA programs for reasons other than educational

(for example, for treatment of physical or emotional disorders or behavior

problems exhibited outside the school setting) and by agencies other than the

LEA or the SEA. This results in students being served by a variety of non-

LEA agencies, such as intermediate educational agencies or regional programs,

SEA-operated programs, other State agencies, and private schools. In

addition, sone of these programs may provide residential services which may

or may not be related to the special education program. All of these out-of-

district placements have implications for funding. The historical role of

SEA-operated facilities and other State agencies in serving children with

handicaps also plays an important role in determining how these placements are

funded.

111.102

142

In some States, such as those using an excess cost or percentage

reimbursement fOrmula, the funding scheme can be easily adapted to handle

multiple types of placements. In those States, the sending LEA typically

would pay tuition to the receiving program, and then would be reimbursed by

the State according to the same excess cost or percentage formula used to fund

LEA placements. In many cases, however, the funding mechanism developed by

States to distribute funds for LEA programs is not always flexible enough to

address out-of-district placements and their interagency naturE. In addition,

some States have designed systems for funding out-of-district placements to

specifically discourage LEAs from making certain types of placements, such as

those in separate facilities. Other mechanisms may unintentionally provide

incentives to LEAs to place students in separate facilities, even though they

have not been designed for this purpose. For example, within a State, LEAs

may have no financial responsibility for students placed at the State school

for the deaf and blind, which may encourage school districts to place students

there.

The methods developed by States for funding out-of-district placements

vary widely both across programs within States and across States within

programs.' Generally, tnere are five approaches which States use to fund these

placements:

o Direct State appropriation to the facility

o Direct payment by the SEA to the facility, using the sameformula employed to distribute funds for LEA programs

'Sources of funds for these placements are discussed in Section B below.

111.103

i43

o Direct payment by the LEA to the facility, with SEAreimbursement to the LEA using the same formula employedto distribute funds for LEA programs

o Direct payment by the LEA to the facility, with SEAreimbursement to the LEA using a different formula thanthe one used to distribute funds for LEA programs

o Payment to the facility by a non-education agency

Funding for out-of-district placements may vary depending on whether the

facility is a day or residential program. States may also use a combination

of these approaches. It is important to note that each of the approaches used

to fund out-of-district placements has the potent;al to create incentives or

disincentives for particular placements. However, regardless of whether the

specific mechanism impacts the use of out-of-district separate facilities, the

approaches are not designed to directly impact programs in those facilities.

The mechanisms used by States to fund each of the various out-of-district

placements are addressed in the following sections.

FundingLof IEU/Reuional Progyam. In some States, intermediate educati--

units and/or regional school districts provide direct Jpecial education

services in both day and residential settings to children with handicaps.

bout one-third of all States reported operation of IEU day facilities, while

fifteen percent reported use of IEU residential placements. There is some

variability among States in how these placements are funded, but most States

operating IEU or regional programs fund the placements using the same

mechanism employed to fund LEA placements. However, the placing LEA pays the

facility for the placement and is reimbursed by the SEA under the LEA formula.

Among the case study States, four States have IEU or regional programs

which operate separate facilities. Ccinecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey have

111.104

regional or intermediate unit day and residential facilities, while in Ohio,

county day programs operate. In addition to separate facilities operated by

joint agreements, Illinois' regional superintendents provide the special

education program for students at three State-operated facilities, with

funding privided by the SEA. The Regional Service Regions do not operate

separate facilities themselves.

The mechanisms used to fund these programs are different in each of the

four case study States. Connecticut funds both day and residential regional

programs similarly, through direct LEA payments with the State reimbursing the

districts according to the same percentage formula used to distribute funds

for LEA programs. Thus, LEAs pay tuition directly to the regional program and

are reimbursed by the State for between 30 percent and 70 percent of the cost

of the tuition. In New Jersey, where multiple types of day and residential

intermediate and regional programs operate, funding is provided either through

direct payment by LEAs or a combination of State, county and local funding.

Ohio funds county day programs through direct SEA payments using the same

unit formula that provides funds for LEA placements. In Illinois, some joilt

agreements operating separate facilities are paid by the LEAs for services

provided to district students, with the LEA reimbursed by the State under the

same flat grant formula used to fund LEA-operated special education programs.

Some joint agreements are recognized as an LEA and receive the flat grant

reimbursement themselves directly from the SEA.

Fundina of SEA-Operated Programs. Many States use facilities operated

by the SEA to provide services to children with disabilities, such as State

schools for the deaf and/or visually impaired. Data from the Survey of SEA

111.105

1

Special Education Divisions indicate that only five of the States have SEA-

operated day piograms, while almost half have SEA-operated residential

facilities. The funding approach in the States with day facilities varies,

but for those States 'operating residential programs, the vast majority (77

percent) fund the facilities through direct State appropriations.

SEA residential programs are operated in four of the eight case study

States. Similar to the rest of the nation, three of tho:e four States

(California, Florida, and Ohio) also fund these programs through direct State

appropriations.' In the fourth State, New Jersey, a combination of mechanisms

is used to fund residential placements in SEA-operated facilities, with direct

payments made by sending districts according to funds received through the LEA

funding formula with the remainder ;mid by State appr-7 ations.

In California, where the six State special sche-is are funded through

direct State appropriation, a recent change is to Lnarge sending LEAs 10

percent of the cost of a student's program. Prior to the 1986-87 school year,

districts could send students to the six State special schools at no charge.

Some SEA respondents in California reported that the 10 percent charge was

instituted to discourage LEAs from sending students to these separate State

facilities. Others believed the 10 percent charge was necessary to help cover

costs.

Funding for Students Placed in Facilities Qperated by Other State

Agencies. Historically, many S.:ate agencies have been involved in the

provision of services to children with handicaps, such as departments of

'In addition, the SEA-operated unified school district providingeducational services to students in residential facilities operated by otherState agencies is funded through direct appropriations.

111.106

146

mental health, youth services, mental retardation, and developmental services.

Data from the stirvey of State special education divisions indicate that over

half the States reported that no day facilities for handicapped students are

operated by State agencies other than the State Department of Education, but

in almost all States (94 percent) residential facilities serving stulents with

disabilities are operated by a wide variety of such agencies. All the case

study States have other State agency operated facilities serving children with

handicaps, but in Louisiana, the education programs provided in such

facilities are administered by and funded through Special School District fl

(SSD fl), an intermediate school district.

With implementation of the general supervision requirements of EHA-B,

new relationships emerged between the SEAs and other state agencies serving

disabled children. By this time, States have generally developed interagency

agreements to specify the financial and programmatic responsibilities of each

agency, but they are often complex and must address historicel anomaly. These

arrangements can be particularly complicated for residential facilities, for

which the funding scheme must take into account the fact that student

placement in other State agency facilities is often for non-educational

purposes and such placements are often made by non-education agencies. Thus,

the fiscal responsibilities of the State and local education agencies are not

always clear.

Among the case study States, the most common method used for funding

residential placements in other State agency programs is for the placing

agency to be responsible for residential costs while the LEA or SEA pays for

the educational costs. This generally occurs regardless of which agency makes

111.107

147

the placement. In New Jersey, however, the Bureau of Special Residential

Facilities within the Department of Human Services (DHS) pays both the

residential and educational costs for residential placements made by DHS. If

an LEA makes a residential placement (in which case it would be fob-

educational purposes), the LEA would pay all costs.

Regardless of whic,: agency pays for the educational services, across

States the actutzl znthod w.;ed to distribute thi resources col difffir depending

on which agency makes the placement, whether the placement is for educational

or other purposes, and whether the placement is day or residential. The case

study States illustrate some of these variations.

In New Jersey and Ohio, funding for other State agency placemtnts is

similar to the approach used to fund LEA placements. In New Jersey, funding

for students placed in other State agency programs is ereentially the same as

funding for students served by LEAs. Weighted pupil units Ire provided based

on type of program; weights for pupils in State facilities range froa a low

of .50 for students served in training schools or correctional facilities

a high of 2.85 fr- students served in Day Training Centers. Funds are

provided to the school district of residence, regardless of where the student

receives services.

In Ohio, programs operated by other State agencies are authvized to

request State educational funding according to the same unit formula used for

LEA programs. For students attending State institutions or developmental

centers operated by the Department of Mental Retardation/Developmental

Disabilities (DMR/DD) or the Department of Menta' Health, the school district

111.108

HI

of residence of the student is responsible for paying tuition to the

institution.

For children placed in separate-facilities by Connecticut's Department

of Children and Youth Services (DCYS), e LEA of the parents' residence

receives funds for and pays for the educational costs of students residing in

DCYS facilities. The district of residence receives a State agency placement

grant from the SEA for costs above 2 1/2 times their average per pupil

educational costs. Most school-aged clients of the Department of Mental

Retardation are now served by local districts, reimbursed by the SEA; the DMR

special school district receives direct State funding for the program it

provides to a small number of school-aged facility residents. Handicapped

youth aged 18 through 21 placed in facilities operated by Connecticut's

Department of Mental Health (DMH), however, are the educational responsibility

of the local or regional board of education of the town where the person is

placed. The impacted school districts are provided with 100 percent current

year funding to serve the eligible residents.

Both Illinois' and South Carolina's funding approaches for placements in

other State agency programs are quite different from that of the other case

study States. In Illinois, there are direct State appropriations for special

education programs at the facilities operated by the Department of

Rehabilitative Services, the two Department of Mental Health facilities where

that agency provides educational services itself, and at the Daaf-Blind School

operated by an LEA under contract to the SEA. In any case, districts

generally pay no tuition charges for students placed in State-operated

programs with few exceptions. In South Carolina, the other State agencies

providing services to handicapped children, the Departments of Mental

Retardation, Mental Health and Youth Services, and the South Carolina School

for the Deaf, Blind and Multihandicapped have their own funding from the

legislature. LEAs sending students to these facilities do not pay them

tuition.

South Carolina also operates a Children's Case Resolution System (MRS),

a formalized structure for interaction among mltiple agencies to place and

fund programs for hard to place children. Costs are share, among the various

agencies with resp ibilities for the student, with CCRS assuming a

percentage of the tc al cost of the placement, and education costs shared by

the LEA and the SEA.

Funding of Private School Placements. Perhaps the most variation across

States in their funding metho& can be found in the approaches to funding

private school placements. These placements are probably subject to the most

latitude in terms of funding because States are under no obligation to make

use of private facilities for the handicapped. In fact, two of the case study

States (Ohio and South Carolina) do not provide public funding for nonpublic

school placements. Historically in both States, there were relatively few

private schocls for handicapped students. In Louisiana, no additional funding

is available for students served in private schools. The LEA can count the

student under their LEA funding formula, but would have to assume any extra

costs of the private school tuition. Recently, Florida implemented a

provision to split the costs of private school placements with local

districts, at a ratio of 60 percent provided by the SEA and 40 percent by the

.1"5-j

LEA, when the costs exceed the total per pupil allocation of both EHA-B and

State'funds.

Most States use the same mechanism to fund both day and residential

placements in private-facilities. Across all States, the most common approach

used to fund private day and residential placements is direct payment by the

LEA usinr either the same or a different formula used to fund LEA placements.

Among the case study States, California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey

use the method of lirect LEA payment. California and Illinois use a different

formula while Connecticut and New Jersey use the same formula used to fund LEA

placements. In all four States, however, the LEA is responsible for me.ing

direct payments to the private facility.

Despite the similarity in general approach, the actual formula used to

fund private placements in the four States varies. In California, districts

are reimbursed by the State for 70 percent of the excess cost of the tuition

or charge for the service. Districts must pay the remaining 30 percent with

local funds. In Illinois, LEAs are reimbursed by the SEA for the difference

between the per capita costs for general education in the district and the

tuition charge for the private placement up to $4,500. For all approved

tuition costs in excess of $4,500, the SEA reimburses for costs over two times

the per capita costs for general edLcation.

In Connecticut and New Jersey, private school tuition is paid by LEAs

who are reimbursed by the SEA using the same mechanisfi; used to fund students

served in LEA programs. In Connecticut, the percentage formula allows

districts to be reimbursed for a percentage of the private school tuition,

and the State pays for costs of placements above five times the average per

.010

151

pupil cost. In New Jersey, the weighted formula provides an L.tra weight for

students placed'in private facilities. That is, students are weighted once

according to handicapping condition and then a second weight is applied for

the private school placement.

Data frnm the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions indicate that,

in many States, the funding formula leaves LEAs with greater costs for private

school placements than most in-district programs, serving as a disincentive

to nonpublic school placement. As prewasly noted, in a few States, no State

special education funding is provided for private school placements. On the

other hand, according to the formula in some States, such as Illinois, LEAs

can receive an equal or greater reimbursement for students placed in private

facilities than if the student is educated in an LEA program, depending upon

the district's per capita costs and the private facility tuition.

In an attempt to control the hish costs of nonpublic placements, some

States, such as Illinois and New Jersny, require that private school tuition

rates be approved by the State. In Illinois, the Governor's Purchased Care

Review Board sets approved rates for tuition and for room and board costs of

non-public residential facilities. In New Jersey, private school tuition

rates are set for individual schools, based on audited allowable costs. None

of the other case study States approve private school tuition rates.

Summary. Five general approaches were identified for funding out-of-

district placements, although the actual formulas used to distribute resources

vary both within and across States. Within States, when both day and

residential facilities are operated by a particular agency, funding for both

types of placements is usually the same. For example, in California, both

111.112

.11 tit.,

private day and private residential facilities are funded using the same

approachdireci LEA payment with SEA reimbursement, although the funding

formula for reimbunement purposes differs from the one used to fund

placements within a school district. Little consistency was found in funding

methods across types of facility operators (SEA, other State agencies, .,zal

public agencies, or private organizations), even within the same Sta_., but

among the case study States and nationally, SEA-operated facilities tend to

be funded through direct State appropriation.

It appears that, while State procedures for funding out-of-district

placements have the potential to influence the rate of student placements in

separate facilities, the impact of the approaches on Liie instructional program

offered in such facilities is likely to be negligible. Further, the capacity

of the funding method even to influence the rate of placement in separate

facilities is confounded by the fact that many such placements are made for

non-educational purposes, and by agencies other than the State and local

education agencies.

B. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS

As noted above, about 8 percent of the funds expended on educational

programs for children with handicaps comes from Federal sources.' This

assistance has been an important influence in the development and support of

State efforts to meet the needs of children with handicaps by helping States

expand and diversify services to this population. The bulk of Federal

assistance for educational services is provided through two formula grant

'Moore, et al. (1988) found that federal ENA-B funds accounted for 6percent of total expenditures for special education at the local level.

;;,3

programs:1 State grants under Part e of the Education of the Handicapped Act

(EHA-8) and grants for State Operated Programs for the Handicapped under the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Chapter 1 of ESEA (SOP), formerly

P.L. 89-313). This section addresses the ways in which States use these

Federal funds.

1. State Use of EHA-8 Funds

EHA-8 funds are provided annually to States based on the total number of

handicapped children aged 3 through 21 reported by their local educational

agencies as receiving special education and related services on December 1 of

the previous fiscal year. Every SEA is required to flow-through a minimum of

75 percent of the funds received under the grant program to LEAs and

intermediate educational units to support the education of handicapped

students. Local agencies are required to use these funds to provide direct

services to handicapped children and must ensure that the funds are not used

to supplant State and local expenditures for special education programs. Data

from the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions (see Table 1.4) indicate

that across all States an average of 81 percent of entitlement funds are

passed through to school districts. Among the case study States, Connectiat,

Florida, Illinois, and Ohio reported that 75 percent of the entitlement funds

'Residential facilities providing long-term treatment or care foremotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, or multiply handicapped personsgenerally receive Medicaid funds to reimburse the costs of residentialservices to persons of all ages, including children and youth below age 22.

15,4,

-7=7'

TABLE 1.4

ALLOCATION OF STATE'S FEDERAL GRANT UNDER EHA-BIN 1987-88 SCHOOL YEAR

(Percent)

FlowThrough Administrative

Resource/MaterialsCenters

ResearchEvaluation,

Pilot Proiects Other

Case Study States

California

Connecticut

FloridaHHH. Illinoisi-i-u,

Louisiana

New Jersey

Ohio

South Carolina

All States

89.3

75.9

75.0

75.0"

80.0

94.0

77.0

95.0

80.6

3.6

6.0

3.4

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

0

3.7

18.4

9.0

A/

0

16.0

0

3.4

7.1

7.5

2.5

1.0

Al

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

6.9

0.7

10.0`

0

0

0

1.0

7.1

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. The Districtof Columbia and all States except Hawaii responded to the survey.

'Includes levelopment of materials which averaged 0.3 percent of EHA-B (ranging from 0 to 3.3 percent).

'Five percent must be used by the receiving district for in-service training.

`Reimbursements for room and board costs for students placed by LEAs at private residential facilities.

'Reported 15.0 percent of EHA-B funds allocated to these activities comblned..15G

are passed through to LEAs.' The remaining States (California, New Jersey,

Louisiana, and South Carolina) all pass through more than the requisite

75 percent, ranging from about 80 percent in Louisiana to 95 percent in South

Carolina. Local districts use the flow-through federal funds to pay for

special education programs, including (depending upon the State) those

providea to students in separate facilities whether operated by the LEA or by

other agencies or private organizations. In Illinois, districts are required

to use 5 percent of their grant under P.L. 94-142 to fund their own in-service

training programs in special education.

The remaining 25 percent of the Federal funds from the grant program may

be set aside for use by the SEA, with up to five percent--or $350,000,

whichever is greater--used to pay for administrative costs. The portion of

the set-aside funds not directed for administrative uses (up to 20 percent)

may be used to provide direct or support services according to State-

established priorities. Some States elect not to use the entire 20 percent

for such purposes, choosing instead to pass through additional funds to LEAs.

A wide range of programs are supported by almost all States with some

part of their set-aside funds. States may fund activities undertaken by its

own staff and may also use a portion of these monies to fund grants,

competitive or otherwise, to school districts. The ability to use these funds

to support State priorities and initiatives provides States with important

opportunities to use funding to impact the content and quality of special

'In addition, in Illinois the legislature granted districts up to 12.5percent of the P.L. 94-142 set-aside funds as a type of entitlement for roomand board costs for districts which place students in private residentialprograms.

education programs. Among the case study States, the set-aside was used most

frequently to support resource centers and technical assistance networks, two

activities geared toward program improvement. Florida and Ohio reported that

almost all their set-iside funds were used for this purpose.

Another frequent use of the set-aside funds is to support pilot afiu

research projects in areas of State-established priorities. This activity

provides opportunities for States to evaluate and disseminate new

instructional methods, or to experiment with innovative ideas and practices

through pilot programs. Many States using a portion of their set-aside funds

for these purposes distribute the funds through a competitive grant process

to LEAs and other educational entities within the State. In Connecticut, for

example, recent priorities for competitive grants to LEAs included transition

planning and placement for students with severe handicaps, non-biased

assessment practices for minority students, enhanced participation of Hispanic

parents in the IEP process, and development of programs for handicapped gifted

and talented students. In Louisiana, set-aside funds have been used to

support priority areas through competitive grants, including colleges and

university personnel training programs, vocational education, coordination of

general education and special education, transition programs, strengthening

appraisal services, regional support services, increased parental involvement,

and low incidence populations.

It should be noted that State funds may also be used, in addition to

Federal set-aside monies, to support various technical assistance,

development, or dissemination projects.

I

2. _c2f_crhasitr_1 _kflifeThuiis

Federal funds for handicapped students are also distributed to States

under Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Edication Act (Charter 1 of

ESEA (SOP), formerly. P.L. 89-313. Grants provided to States under this

program are targeted for use to expand or improve educational services to

handicapped children currently enrolled in State-operated or State-supported

schools and programs. A 1975 amendment to this program allowed the use of

grant funds to follow handicapped children transferred from State-operated or

State-supported facilities to programs perated by Las, in an effort to

encourage the transfer of students to programs in their home communities.

Thus, it is not surprising that most States report using Chapter 1 of ESEA

(SOP) funds to supplement direct services provided to children in State-

operated facilities and to develop programs for the transition of students to

their community schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1988). The ability of

States to use Chapter 1 funds to supplement programs in State-operated or

supported facilities provides another opportunity for States to impact the

quality of programs in these separate facilities.

Among the case study States, the use of funds provided through the

Chapter 1 program focuses almost exclusively on the support of direct services

to children. In Connecticut, for example, Chapter 1 funds are used by the

Department of Mental Retardation ,a support teacher aides. Similarly, in

Illinois, Chapter 1 grints are typically awarded to provide services to

children who are severely handicapped and in low incidence groups and are

usually used to pravide or increase the amount of services such as

occupational and physical therapy, speech therapy, and diagnostic services.

111.118

In Louisiana, Chapter 1 funds are used for the unified school district serving

students in State-operated facilities, the Schools for the Deaf and Visually

Impaired, and in districts (parishes) with Chapter I transfer students. Funds

are spent primarily for personnel and supplies and materials. Ohio also

reprted that Chapter I funds were used mostly on contracted personnel

expenditures, and South Carolina eLported similar uses of these funds. In New

Jersey, SEA staff reported that Chapter I funds are ustd for a wider rInge of

services, such as training, conferences and workshops, transportation, parent

training or workshops, staff salaries and instructional equipment or

materials.

C. SUMMARY

As indicated by Table 1.5, the case study States use a wide variety of

mechanisms to fund special education programs for students with handicaps.

Across States, the funding mechanisms used vary by facility operator,

and there appears to be no relationship between how a State funds LEA

placements and the approach used to fund placements of students in out-of-

district facilities. Funding methods can also differ according to whether

the facility is operated by e public or private agency, but for specific

operators within a Stte, both day and residential placements tend to be

funded similarly. The only similarity found across all States is that SEA-

operated residential facilities are commonly funded through direct State

appropriation.

Overall, the methods used by States to fund within and out-of-district

special education placements are not designed to impact on the programs

1 6 u

TABLE 1.5

FUNDING OF PLACEMENTS AT NON-LEA OPERATED FACILITIES IN CASE STUDY STATE;

StateLEA Funding

Formula

California Flat Grant

Connecticut Percentage andExcess Cost

I 6

Weighted Pupil

uirect State

Appropriation

SEA OperatedResidential

SEA Operated

ResidentialFacilities

Direct SEAPayment UsingSame Formula as

HA Fermis

Illinois Flat Grants State OperatedPrograms'

Louisiana PercentageSalaries

SEA Operaied

Unified SchoolDistrict

Direr% LEA

Payment with SEAReiing UsingSame Formula asLEA Fergie

Direct LEA

Payment withSEA Reimbursing

Using Different

Formula

Payment byNon-Education

ANACY Other

State OperatedDey and ResidentialFacilities

Regional Day

and ResidentialFacilities

Private Dey

and ResidentialFecilities

Joint AgreementPrograms

Private Dayand Residential

Facilitir

Private Dayand Residential

Facilities

State Operated


State OperatedWandResidential

Facilities


StateLEA Funding Direct State

Formula Appropriation

Direct SEAPayment UsingSame Fonmsla as

LEA Formula

Direct-LEAPayment with SEAReimbursing UsingSame Formala as

LEA Formula

Direct LEAPayment with

SEA ReimbursingUsing Different

Formula

Payment byNon-EducationAgency

New Jersey WeightedPupil

Ohio PercentageSalaries

South WeightedCarolina Pupil

SEA Operated Couff4 DayResidential FacilitiesFacilities

State Operated

Residential

Facilities

State OperatedResidentialFacilities

State OperatedDay andResidential

Private


Regional Dayand ResidentialFacilities

SEA OperatedResidentialFacilities

Private DayFacilities

SrwP.CE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 for this study. The District of Columbia and all States except Hawaii respooded tothe survey.

NOTE: State operated facilities - Facilities operated by State agencies other than the SEA.

`Including the Deaf-Blind Center which is operated by an LER u..der contract to the SEA.

I

1 6,3

offered by separate facilities. Rathe the major effect of State funding

procedures results from their capacity to influence the use of separate

facilities through the operation of incentives and disincentives, intended or

otherwise. For example, some SEA respondents in California reported that the

recent implementation of a 10 percent tuition charge for students placed in

State special schools, previously free to sending LEAs, was instituted for the

express purpose of discouraging districts from sending students to the six

SEA-operated schools. Conversely, in Illinois and New Jersey, LEAs can

receive an equal or greater reimbursement for students placed ir private

facilities than if the student is educated in an LEA program, providing a

potential incentive to districts to place students in private facilities.

One funding mechanism available to States to impact educational programs

themselves is through the use of Federal funds. States can distribute these

funos through varying means and can use Federal dollars to implement State-

established priorities and initiatives. Among the ca:.,a study States, set-

aside funds provided through EHA-0 were used primarily to fund resource

centers and technical assistance networks, while Chapter 1 of ESEA (Sr?) funds

were targeted on supplementing personnel resources. Thus, while State funding

procedures are most likely to impact program placements in separate

facilities, Federal funds are one source of funds used for program

improvement.

111.122R- u

II. SEA PROCEDURES: SPECIAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AND MONITORING PROCEDURES

Federal statutes and regulations regarding programs for the handicapped

do not generally specffy exact program standards within which State and local

special education programs must operate, although all such programs must

operate within the general framnwork set forth by EHA.1 Within this context,

all States set some specific standards for the operation of special education

prcgrams for facilities under their jurisdiction. These standards provide

minimum requirements for, enhance the uniformity of, and promote equity in the

quantity and quality of instruction provided to students, in what is often a

highly decentralized system of local control.

To ensure implementation of State standards and Federal requirements for

the operation of special education programs, Federal requ!rements dictate that

State education agencies are responsible for assuring that the provisions of

EHA are implemented, through monitoring of all educational programs within the

State, including programs administerea by any State And local agency. This

requirement is designed to ensure that all program providers comply with the

Federal and State requirements that set forth and guarantee the provision of

a free appropriate public education to all handicapped children and youth.

The process used in States to implement this requirement is commonly referred

to as compiiafic, monitoring.

'Recent regulations for EHA (4/27/89) require that the States use their6...1.1 existing highest requirements to determine standards anpropriate topersonnel who provide special education and reLted services to children andyouth with handicaps. Since this regulation was not in effect during the datacollection phase of this study, the impact of this Federal standard cannot beaddressed.

111.123

This chap:2r discusses how the State educational standards in place for

special educatiOn programs in the case study States may differ for programs

operated in separate facilities, drawing primarily .pon data collected in the

Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions. The chapter then describes the

compliance monitoring process used by States to ensure Oct special education

programs operate in accordance with State and Federal requirements, using both

survey and case study data.

A. STANDARDS

The use of educational standards is one way that States attempt to affect

the quality of education programs. States typically set educational standards

in the areas of staffing and instructional programs.' In these areas,

standards are usually specified for personnel qualifications, the amount of

time students are exposed to instruction (length of school day/year), the

numbers of staff available to an individual student (pupil/teacher ratios),

and the instructicaal content of student programs. Many States also have

sta"dards for student achievement a determined by competency testing and

graduation requirements, but these are typically specified for tt' leneral

education program. Within States, all handicapped students may not be subject

to the same requirements as non-handicapped students. In some States, special

exceptions or exemptions from the general education standards are made for

students in all or some categories of handicapping conditions, while other

States offer diplomas for meeting IEP requirements or certificates of

completion rather than diplomas. Some States have a separate set of student

'Standards related to the health and safety of students and staff are alsogEnerally set, but are not the focus of this examination.

111.124

standards f children involved in special education programs, while others

do not address this area at all. As most of the case stuay States do not

expressly specify student standards for children with handicaps, this area was

not pursued.

In examining State standards for special education programs for this

study, the standards in place for LEA special education programs were used as

a baseline against which the standards for programs in separate special

education facilities rould be compared. The staff and program standards

developed by Sta.:es for LEA programs and differences in those standards for

non-LEA facilities are discussed below.

1. Staff Certification Standards

All eight case study States have sp,.cific certification requirements for

special education teachers and/or related services staff. Most case study

States also set standards for administrators working in special education

programs.

Teacher Certification. For teachers, certification tends to be required

for specific handicapping conditions. For cample, in California

certification is granted in the five areas of learning handicapped, severely

handicapped, physically haadicapped, communication handicapped, and visually

handicapped. Among the case stuc_ ates, New Jersey is the State that

requires certification for the most limited number of handicapping conditions.

In New Jersey at the time of the site visit, the following certificates for

instructional staff are required: teacher of the handicapped and teachers of

the handicapped with endorsements (blind or partially sighted, deaf or hard

of hearing, and nursery school).

111.125

1C,c;

These teacher certification requirements apply to special education

teachers employea in local school district programs. In most of the -ase

study States, all teachers in all special education programs are required to

meet these standards. In Illinois and South Carolina, however, there are

differences for some facilities. In State-operated facilities in Illinois,

teachers must meet the State certification requireoents plus any additional

qualifications set forth by the department or agency operating the facility.

In addition, for private schools in Illinois, only twenty-five percent of the

instructional staff are required to meet State teacher certification

requirements. In private facilities in South Carolina, only the teacher or

teachers serving students placed in such facilities by LEAs must meet the

State certification requirements; other staff employed by the private facility

need not be certified.

Across all other States responding to the Survey of SEA Special Education

Divisions, most indicated that teacher certification standards for staff in

LEA programs do not differ for staff emp.oyed in separate facilities operated

by other agencies or organizations.' Four States indicated differences for

staff in State and/or privately operated facilities.

Related Seivices Perscnnel Certification. For related services staff,

the situation is similar to that for teacher certification sfIndards. All

case study States and most other States reported the existence of

certification standards for related services personnel who deliver services

'States can make prOvision for provisional or temporary certification,alternative certifi:ation, and emergency certification, which can permitclassroom teachers without extensive training in special education to teachhandicapped students.

111.126

in LEA programs and for the most part, these standards were reported to be the

same for personnel in other types of facilities. South Carolina was the

exception, indicating that certification requirements for speech pathologists

and psychologists employed in LEA programs differed for similar personne;

working in other special education programs.

Administrative StaffSertification. Sevcn case study States reported

the existence of LEA standards for specie; education administrators. Among

these States, Illinois was the only one reporting a difference in the

sth iards fot administrative staff between LEA programs and other State-

operated facilities and private programs. Florida was the only State that

reported no LEA standards for these personnel.

Thirty-seven of the non-case study States reported no differences in

standards fOr special education administ-ative staff across types of

facilities or programs.

2. Prot:mem Standards

Instructional program standards are used in an attempt to ensure

uniformity in the amount and quality of instruction provided to students and

to ensure equal educational opportunities among students. Program standards

are generally specified in four areas: curriculum content, length of school

day/year, pupil/teacher ratios, and maximum class size/caseloads. Program

standards for special education may differ from the standards specified for

general education programs, or the same standvds may apply across both

programs.

DEriculum Content _Standards. Curriculum content standards generally

take the form of broad guidelines which help ensure the consistency of

111.127

i7o

instructional progrims within and across school districts or may delineate a

set of skills and objectives to be obtained by students at various points in

the student's program.

Five of the caSe study States (California, Connecticut, Florida,

Illinois, and Louisiana) have standards for curriculum content in LEA

programs, but only Florida and Louisiana have developed curriculum standards

specifically for special education p'ograms. Three States (New Jersey, Ohio,

and South Carolina) reported ne State-prescribed gener.1 education or special

education cueriLulum.'

Three of the five case study States with curriculum 3tandards

(California, Connecticut, and Louisiana), indicated that the same standards

apply to both LEA and other types of programs, while two States (Florida and

Illinois) reported that these standards differ for privately operated and

Statl-operated facilities respectively. In Illinois, the School for the

Visually Impaired and the School for the Deaf have their own curriculum

standards. While these standards are similar to LEA course requirements, they

have been adapted to meet the needs of the populations served by the

facilities. Florida does not require the use of its special education

curriculum frameworks in private schools for handicapped students.

Across all other States, nineteen indicated that curriculum standards

were the same across all types of facilities, while another twenty States

indicated no curriculum standards for LEAs in general or special education.

'Ohio does have requirements for development of educational programs tomeet distributional requirements for courses of study in elementary andsecondary school prrygams, as well as specific objectives for the educationalprogram for students with particular handicapping conditions.

111.128

Lenoth of School Day and Year. All case study States reported having

standaras applic'able to LEAs regarding the minimum length of the school day

and year. Four States (California, Florida, Illinois, and South Carolina)

reported differences between LEA standards antl those for other types of

facilities. Where standards differ they are generally in State-operated

facilities with year-round programs. Across the other States surveyed, most

(over 90%) reported that standards for length of the school day and year are

the same across all types of facilities.

Pupil/Teacher Ratios. Five of the eight case study States (Illinois,

Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Carolina) report3d having LEA standards

for pupil/teacher ratios, while California, Connecticut, and Florida reported

that pupil/teacher ratios are at the discretion of local districts. nnly

Illinois and South Carolina reported differences in pupil/teacher ratios

between LEA and other programs. .,.Juth Carolina reported lower pupil/teacher

ratios for State-operated programs; these standards are set by the other State

agency but monitored by the SEA. In Illinois, pupil/teacher ratios in public

schools are dictated by standards and regulations, while ratios in private

schools are dictated by the students' IEPs.

Among the non-case study States, eight did not report LEA standards for

pupil/teacher ratios and twenty-one States use the same standards across

facilities.

Maximum Class Size/Caseload Standards. Most case study States have

standards governing maximum class size and/or caseloads for LEA programs. In

some States, these standards are an integral part of the formula used to

distribute special education resources. In Connecticut and Florida, class

111.129

1 72

1

size and caseload staneards are at the discretion of each local district, and

California doe!: not :et maximum class size standards except for resource

programs.

Across all Statei which specify class size/caseioad standards for LEA

programs, most reported that standards are the same across facilities. Three

case study States and five other States indicated differences for State and/or

privately operated programs.

3. Summary

All States establish educational standards in the areas of staff

certification and program content, in an attempt to affect the quality of

education programs. These standards provide the context in which all

education programs must operate within a State, including special education

programs at separate facilities. For this study, the standards applicable to

LEA special education programs provided the baseline against which other

education programs were compared. As indicated in Table 11.1, across the case

study States, there is conside:able uniformity in the existence of educational

standards and their applicability across facilities. In only two case study

States were there different personnel and program standards for almost all

types of facilities. Across the case study states, the standard that varies

most often is length of school day/year, associated primarily with the year

round programs offered in State operated facilities. Of the remaining

differences, most are due to a different set of standards applied in private

schools.

TABLE 11.1

DIFFERENCES IN STAMDAROS BETWEEN LEA SPECIALEDUCATION PROGRAMS AND ALL 0110 PROGRAMS'

State

rd

TeacherCertification

RelatedServices

CertificationAdministratorCertification

CurriculumContent

Length of

Day/YearTeacher

Ratio

Class Sire

Caseigad

California No No No No Yes N/A Yes

Connecticut No No No No No N/A N/A

Florida No No N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A

Illinois Yes° Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Louisiana No No No No No No No

New Jersey No No Ito N/A No No No

Ohio No No No N/Ac No No No

South Carolina Yes° No No N/A Yes Yes Yes

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. The District of Columbia and all States except Hawaiiresponded to the survey.

°All other programs includes SEA-operated facilities, privately operated facilities and facilities operated by other State agencies.

°Differences only occur in private facilities.

`The distributional requirements for courses of study in elementary and secondary education programs do not differ between LEA and all other specialedvation programs.

N/A - No Statewide standard for LEA program exists.

'75

This general pattern of similar standards applied across types of special

education programs, regardless of their location, reinforces the conclusion

that States do not use standards per se to affect separate facilities.

Separate facilities ire, by and large, required to conform to the same

standards for staff qualifications and program content 's the special

education programs operating in local public schools. Thus, educational

standards by themselves do not provide States with a unique tool for improving

educationil programs at separate facilities. However, coupled with the

ability of the SEA to ensure implementation of standards, States generally

reported having an effective mechanism for affecting instructional practices

in separate facilities, as well as in other special education programs. One

means used by all States to ensure compliance with State and Federal standards

is monitoring, which is discussed '1 the following section.

B. COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Federal regulations require that State Education Agencies be responsible

for assuring that the provisions of EHA are implemented. Monitoring of States

by the U.S. Department of Education is designed to ensure that SEAs carry out

that responsibility, through monitoring of all educational programs within the

State, including those provided at separate facilities. The Federal

monitoring requirements are comprehensive in scope, requiring that in addition

to monitoring LEAs and IEUs, the SEA must also monitor other State agencies

providing educat on programs for children with handicaps as well as assure

that any programs for disabled children located in private facilities and paid

for by public funds comply with Federal and State standards. This requirement

is designed to ensu'e that all program providers comply with the Federal and

111.132

170

State provisions that set forth and guarantee a free appropriate public

education to all handicapped children and youth.

The Federal requirements emphasize compliance with the procedures

required by law more than program content. This emphasis has influenced SEAs

to focus their monitoring efforts on the procedural aspects of State and

Federal law (e.g., procedures for IEP development, use of surrogate parents)

rather than on a direct assessment of the quality and effectiveness of special

education programs. As a rcsult, the monitoring systems designed by States

to generate the information required by Federal law and regulations are

remarkably similar. This has been reported in previous studies (Farrow, 1983;

NASDSE, 1986) and was confirmed during site visits to the eight case study

States. The typical process used by States to monitor special education

programs operated in public (local or State-operated) facilities is described

below, including a discussion of variation among States in monitoring

procedures. The process used ir States to monitor special education programs

operated by private facilities is quite different and is addressed in a

subsequent ser.tion.

1. General Monitoring Process

The procedures that most SEAs have implemented to carry out their

monitoring responsibilities with regard to LEAs, intermediate or regional

education agencies, and other State agencies providing education to

handicapped students are based on a cyclical process in which agencies are

subject to a comprehensive compliance review by the SEA at specified

intervals. The review centers on an on-site visit, and encompasses three

phases: 1) Data Collection and Review; 2) On-Site Validation Review; and 3)

111.133

177

Reporting and Followup. These general procedures are used regaruless of

whether the agency befig monitored operates separate facilities, as is

generally the case for other State agencies, or provides special education in

a variety of settings including separate facilities, such as LEAs and IEUs.

State agency programs, however, are not reviewed with regard to student

identification and evaluation issues, since these functions are the

prerogative of LEAs.

The data collection and review component of the compliance review is

designed to obtain and review relevant information for determining the

consistency of local policies and procedures with Federal and State statutes

and regulations. Implementation of these policies and procedures are verified

during the on-site revieN conducted during the second phase of the monitoring

process. Activities completed during this phase focus on preparation for the

on-site monitoring visit and include obtaining and reviewing district policies

and analysis of performance data. A self-evaluation by the agency may also

be completed at this time. In addition, logistical procedures such as

building and pupil sampling for purposes of verification are undertaken.

The primary purpose of on-site monitoring is to validate the

implementation of the plans, policies and procedures documented during the

first phase of the monitoring process and to ensure compliance with areas not

readily verifiable through document review and data reporting. This phase

typically includes scheduled visits to schools and classrooms to observe all

components of the program, such as instruction, related services, staffing

patterns, teacher certification and qualifications, program supervision,

physical plant, and availability of in-service training. Activities during

111.134

this phase also include record review for a sample of students aud review of

a sample of IEFis, as well as interviews with various personnel, such as

administratoi support personnel, teachers, students, and parents, to verify

the provision of services and to validate that procedures are being

implemented as documented. For LEAs this process generally includes selection

of students placed in locally-operated separate facilities as well as those

placed in private and State-operated separate facilities. These students'

actual programs and services are reviewed against their IEPs.

The final phase of the on-site compliance re,Acw process--reporting and

followup--is designed to provide agencies with feedback regarding their

compliance status, to assist with development and implementation of plans for

corrective action and in some States, to provide recommendations cn program

areas which may need improvement even though they ire in compliance with

Federal and State .statute A. and regulations. This component includes

preparation of a written report of findings from the on-site visit, and

follow-up to ensure oat required actions are implemented. The content of

the written report is similar among States and typically includes

commendations, areas of noncompliance, and a plan for corrective action and/or

a program improvement plan, as well as timelines for implementing required

and recommended changes. Once the plans of action are completed and

appropriate documentation of implementation of the corrective actions have

been received, the SEA sends a letter indicating compliance to the local

agency or facility. If compliance is not echieved within the required

t4melines, sanctions such as the withholding of funds may be applied. The

111.135

7;)

provision of technical assistance to assist districts agencies, or facilities

gain compliance is an important pa. of this phase.

For the most part, this process is used across all types of public

special education programs and facilities, including separate facilities

operated by other State agencFer. In fact, in some States the programs

operated by other State agencTe. are designated as special school districts

and are treated as such for monitorirg prposes. However, thr% documents and

manuals used to monitor special education programs operated by her State

agencies are typically tailored to each agency and do not address areas which

are outside their domain, such as identification and referral procedures.

Also, the use of special procedures, cech as coordinated reviews ar ! local

self-evaluations are not generally used in the monitoring of other State

agencies.

However, despite the similarity in genevt,1 approach, there is some

variation in monitoring procedures across States, as discussed below. These

differences are related, not to the type of special education program or

facility, but to specific ways States have designed monitoring of the entire

special education system.

The three step process described above is central to the monitoring

procedures used by States to fulfill their administrative responsibilities

under EHA. However, there are important differences among ctates in how this

process is tiplemented. The dimensions on which States vary include:

o The strategies employed for reporting and followup, inclulingthe provision of ,techwical assistance and the application ofsanctions for noncompliance

o The interval at which programs are monitored

111.136

S t)

o The use of cff-site reviews

o The SEA 'personnel involved in monitoring

o The use of coordinated reviews

o The use of seif-reviews

flayrtino and Follow-up. Most variation among States in compliance

monitoring occurs in the reporting and follow-up phase, where different

strategies are used to provide feedback on the results of the on-site visits,

in the follow-up techniques undertaken to ensure that corrective acCons have

been taken, and in the level if technical assistance provided. California,

for example, uses an automated system to track progress on required corrective

actions. In Illinois, administrat,ve reviews of a district's programs (or of

those at State-operated facilities) may be conducted by State special

education staff as follow-up to monitoring for several years after an on-site

visit, until full compliance is achitved. For private facilities, follow-up

'sits may be made by the SEA's Non Public School Approval Dep--tment, not by

Special Education staff, to ensure the,: noted deficiencies are corrected. All

deficiencies must be corrected prior to the required annual review. In

Louisiana, a follow-0 visit may be completed to ensure that noted

deficiencies have been coiected.

Among the case study StP..tes, Ohio's monitoring process is distinctive in

the level of interaction between the SEA and the LEA, which is exemplified in

the approach used to Ixepare the report of findings, including the actions to

be undertaken by agencies to correct deCciencies. In most of the States, a

written document is prepared with the SEA taking the lead role in development

of the plans for correcti,o action. Although local agencies in Illinois and

111.137

1.81

California also play an extensive role in developing the corrective action

plan, in Ohio the monitoring team routinely conducts an on-site follow-up

meeting to negotiate the corrective actions to be taken by local

administrators. One respondent in Ohio reported that this meeting is viewed

as "an in-service for district administrators."

In general, Ohio's monitoring system, referred to as Program Review and

Evaluation Procedures (PREP) is viewed as more than a compliance monitoring

process. Extensive technical assistance is provided to districts during the

preparatory ahd corrective action phases and the active involvement of the LEA

is perceived as critical. SEA staff reported that PREP has substantially

increased the ability of the Division to affect change and improvement in

special education programs in Ohio.

In cortrast to Ohio, where the monitoring process is heavily integrated

with technical assistance and most SEA special education staff are involved

in the proces.:, Florida recently differentiated the monitoring and technical

assistance responsibilities of SEA staff. State staff in Florida reported

that the previous system, where the same individuals in charge of identifying

problems through compliahce monitoring also helped to correct the problems

through technical assistance, had presented a number of difficulties. Program

area consultants now develop programs and make program improvements on a

Statewide rather than on an individual school or distri(t basis, and there is

a separate monitoring unit with the special education division. In 1988,

other staff, particular by those involved in program development and

management of Feder,' grants, began to participate in compliance monitoring

reviews.

111.138

One component of the repo-ting and follow-up phase is ensuring that

corrective actions have been made once an agency has been monitored. The use

of sanctions is one means States have for ensuring that required corrective

actions are implemented. State special education staff across the case study

States generally viewed sanctions, such as the withholding of funds applied

to non-compliant agencies, as counterproductive and report that they are

rarely used. Providing technical assistance was reported as a much more

effective technique for helping agencies achieve compliance. In fact, SEA

staff generally agreed that an important outcome of the compliance monitoring

process was the ability to identify areas requiring technical assistance.

Monitoring Interval. Data from the Survey of SEA Special Education

Divisions indicate that across States, the frequency with which on-site

reviews are conducted for special education programs at separate facilities

andelsewhere is very similar across facility types, with over half (twenty-

eight) of the States conducting on-site compliance reviews on a three-year

basis. Across all States, the next most frequent interval for on-site

compliance reviews is five years (twelve States). Four States reported an

interval of fc...r years, two States reported an interval of two years, and one

State reported compliance reviews are conducted annually. Table 11.2

illustrates the uniformity across the case study states. For LEAs, only

New Jersey and Ohio reported that monitoring is conducted at a longer interval

than every three years. Ohio reported using frequent communications between

the LEAs and the SEA during the school year to supplement on-site reviews

111.139

1 3

TABLE 11.2

FREQUENCY OF ON-SITE MONITORING FOR PUBLIC

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS AMONG CASE STUDY STATES,BY TYPE OF PROGRAM MONITORED

(Fre4uency in Years)

Type of Program Konitored

LEA

ProgramsIEU

ProgramsSEA

Programs

OtherStateAgency

California 3 3

rams3 3

Connecticut 3 3 NA 3

Florida 3 NA 3 3

Illinois 3 NA Ongoing

Louisiana 3 NA 3 NA

New Jersey 5 5 5 5

Ohio 3 3 3 3

South Carolina 3 NA KA 3

All States 3 years (28) NA (32) KA (28) NA (3)5 years (12) 3 years (11) 3 years (13)

1;::::5 years (3) 5 years (6) gili

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. TheDistrict of Columbia and all States except Hawaii responded to the survey.

KA - no program of this type were reported.

111.140

every six years. New Jersey reported a monitoring interval of five years for

all public agencji programs.

Use of Off-Site Reviews. A study conducted by NASOSE (1986) found that

as States have worked toward improving their systems of compliaace monitoring,

they have developed processes which enable them to monitor public agencies

providing special education on a more continuous basis than the on-site review

interval would otherwise allow. These foff-site" reviews include techniques

such as annual self-assessments and reviews of written policies, procedures,

and forms to determine their compliance with State and Federal laws and

regulations. Among the case study States. Table 11.3 indicates that

variability among the case study States only Lalifornia and South Carolina do

not extensively u:e off-site rPviews for special education programs. 'In

general the frequency of off-site reviews fOr separate facilities as well as

for special education programs in 13cal districts is most typ;cally at one or

three year intervals. Data frcm the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions

indicate that across other States, the exi:tence and frequency of off-site

review procedures is similar to those for the case study States.

Monitoring Staff. Not surprisingly, among the case study States the SEA

is almost always responsible for monitoring all public agency programs,

although the SEA staff conducting the compliance reviews can vary. (In Ohio,

monitoring for all public agency programs except those in State institutions

and State developmental centers is conducted by staff from the State special

education division; monitoring for the latter two types of programs is

conducted by the individual departments operating the program.) As indicated

on Table 11.4, in four of the case study States (California, Connecticut,

R 5

TABLE 11.3

EXISTENCE AND FREQUENCY OFOFF-SITE REVIEWS IN MONITORING PROCESS

STATE- oar Other

California Pr:vate Facilities

Connecticut LEM1EUs

Othe State Agency Private FacilitiesFacilities

Florida LEAs

SEA-Operated FacilitiesOther State Agency

Facilities

IllinoisLEAs Other State Agency1EUs Facilities

Loufsiana LEAs SEA-Operated UnifiedPrivate Facilities School District Program

New Jersey LEAs

1EUs


FacilitiesPrivate Facilities

South Carolina

All States'

LEAs

LEAs (20)IEUs (4)

SEA-Operated Facilities (8)

Other State Agency

Facilities (20)

Private Facilities (19)

LEAsIEUs


Facilities

LEAs (13) LEAs (8)IEUs (4) 1EU5 (3)

SEA-Operated Facilities (6) SEA,OperatedFacilities (4)

Other State Agency Other StateFacilities (7) Faci:ities (8)Pritate (1) Private (5)

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conducted in 1988 as part of this study. TheDistrict of Columbia and all States except Hawaii responded to the survey.

'Number of States in which no off-sits review was conducted, by the type of program operated:LEAs (8 States had no off-site review)

IEUs (32 States had no IEUs cr no special educatir- programs run by IEUs; 6 States had no off-sitereviews of such programs)

SEA-Operated Facilities (28 States had no such facilities; 3 States had no off-site reviews of suchprograms)

Other State AgencifFacilitils (3 States had no special education programs operated by suchfacilities; 11 States hadrno off-site reviews of such programs)

Private Facilities (13 States reported no such facilities providing special education; 11States had no off-site reviews of such facilities)

111.142 G

TABLE 11.4

SEA PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MONITORING

STATE

Stiff 2,

Separate CompliancecOYrscflion

Nonitorim Unit Qivision Staff

California X

Connecticut X

Florida X

Illinois X

Louisiana X

New Jersey

Jhio X6

South Carolina X

Other

x6

SOURCE: Information provided during Site visits, conducted in 1989.

County-based staff conduct monitoring of LEA special education programs, while central office staffconduct monitoring of private and State-operated special education programs.

b For other state agency programs in Ohio, monitoring is conducted by the individual departmentsoperating the program, using procedures parallel to those used to monitor other facilities.

171.143 I S

Florida and Louisiana) monitoriEg is carried out primarily by a separate

compliance unit within the division of special education,1 while in Ohio,

Illinois, and South Carolina, all staff of thi special education division are

involved in the monitoring process. In New Jersey, SEA employees working at

the county level (county supervisors of child study) are responsible for

monitoring the special education programs in the school districts under their

jurisdiction, while central office staff from the special education division

conduct monitoring activities for both SEA-operated programs and facilities

operated by other State agencies. Data from the Survey of SEA Special

Education Divisions indicate that across all State:, the vast majority also

conduct compliance monitoring activities through the special education

division of the SEA.

11IesAlcop_lims.e_s_m_seofcoodirirvis. Education programs receiving

Federal funding are subject to compliance reviews by the State for each type

of Federal grant. Some States choose to monitor all Federally funded programs

and/or State categorical programs (e.g., Fed.ral Chapter 1 programs, State

programs for limited English proficient Audents) in one coordilated

compliance review. Other States may monitor categorical programs and general

education programs together, while in many States each program is monitored

separately. Responses to the Survey. of SEA Special Education Divisions

indicate that in most States, special education programs in local districts,

including those operating separate facilities, and in State-operited

facilities are monitored separately from other categorical programs and

'In 1988, other ial education division staff in Flo-ida began toparticipate in mo. g. In Connecticut some staff from other unitsparticOate in monit ng.

111.144

general education programs. (See Table 11.5.) Three of the case study

States, Califenia, Connecticut and Florida, undertake a coordinated

compliance review in which a number of categorical programs are monitored

during a single on-site visit by a multidisciplinary team from the SEA.

Special education programs are monitored by staff from the special.education

division, while the other programs reviewed during the on-site visit are

monitored by staff from their respective SEA divisions (e.g., bilingual

education, compensatory education). Staff in these States reported that this

coordinated effort made the monitoring process more efficient ard was

perceived to be less burdensome by local districts.

Data from the Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions indicated that

for States that monitc. .pecial education with other Federally funded

programs, 59 percent of the respondents reported they did not believe that

"over time monitoring has increasingly focused on program content and

instructional issues." Staff in most States (71 percent) that monitor special

education and general education programs concurrently also disagreea with this

statement. However, in over the half the States (55 percent) which monitor

special ed.cation programs separctely from any other State cr Federal program,

staff agreed that the monitoring process has increasingly focused on program

content and instructional issues over tin.. These findings may reflect the

fact that States conducting coorPnated reviews have designed systems which

focus on the common elements across programs--the procedural requirements--

rather than on program content.

111.145

TABLE 11.5

HOW SPECIAL EDUCATION MONITORING IS CONDUCTEDIN RELATION TO OTHER SEA MONITORING ACTIVITIES

With Other With General With NoFederally Funu,d Education Other

Proarams Proarams Proarams

Case Study States (N=8)

California X X

Connecticut X X

Florida X X

Illinois X' X

Louisiana X X

New Jersey Xc X° X'

Ohio X

South Carolina X

Total 4 6 4

Total 12 14 33

SOURCE: Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions, conductei in1988 as part of this study. The District lf Columbia andall St.tes except Hawaii responded to the survey.

NOTE: More than one response was permitted.

'Selectively monitors programs at same time monitors Chapter 1grants.

'Monitors special IducatiOn staff credentials jointly.

4For State-operated pregrams.

'For local public programs.

'For private schools.

111.1461 9U

Use of self-reviews. Another important difference among States with

respect to their monitoring procedures is the use of self-reviews by local

education agencies. Among the case study States, California and Connecticut

make extensive use of self-reviews, which are intensive reviews requiring

local staff to make visits to schools and programs as well as a review of

student records and other documentation. The local staff write a report of

findings which is submitted to the SEA, noting areas of compliance,

noncompliance, and needs for technical assistance. In California, local

districts that have an excellent self-review can be excused from the

monitoring process for one cycle. In those cases, only one SEA staff member

. would visit the dist.-ct to validate the self-review. Nrw Jersey uses self-

reviews extensively in monitoring private schools, as described in the next

section. Conhecticut is considering adopting a new procedure where LEAs with

a goad record from their past monitoring visits will be allowed to conduct and

file a report using self-study guides. They would then be monitored on-site

by the SEA on a six-year rather than a three-year cycle. Although other case

study States also employ self-evaluation prxedures, they are used primarily

as a preparatory process only prior to the SEA on-site visit.

The use of the self-review process in California and Connecticut

acknowledges that all LEAs may not require the same level of monitoring,

particularly a decade after implementation of P.L. 94-142. The self-review

process as used in these two States allows the SEA to differentiate among

LEAs, focusing their monitoring, and particularly their follow-up and

technical assistance activities, on those districts with identified problemi

or special concerns. Self-reviews are generally used only for local education

agency programs, as a whole.

111.147

191

2. Monitorino of Private Schools

Compliarice monitoring for programs operated by private schools differs

substantially from the process used by SEAs to monitor special education

programs and facilities operated by local public agencies and there are

several different processes used across States. The process may include a

letailed approval and certification process specifically designed for special

education programs in private schools or there may be a private school

approval process applicable regardless of whether the students served are

handicapped or not. Based on information provided on the Survey of SEA

Special Education Divisions, in 70 percent of the States there is a procedure

to register and/or approve private schools, and in most of these cases the

approval process appears to be focused on special education criteria. Some

States monitor private schools when the LEA in which they are located is

monitored, while other States may monitor a special education private school

placement but not the entire facility. Over half the States reported on the

Survey of SEA Special Education Divisions that compliance reviews associated

with private placements were conducted ty the SEA division of special

education, with on-site monitoring typically at three year intervals. Table

11.6 summarizes for the case study States, whether the private school approval

process has a special education focus, if approval is conducted by the SEA

division of special education and if private school approval is a process

distinct from LEA compliance monitoring.

111.148

n

TAILE 11.6

MONITORING OF PRIVATE SMOOL PROGRAMS OR FACILITIES

. .

Cal ifornia YES NO YES

Connecticut YES NO YES

Florida LI YES YES

Illinois NO NO

Louisiana YES YES NO

New Jersey YES NO YES

Ohio NO NO no

South Carolina No3 NO tES.

SOURCE: Information collected during site visits conducted i 1987.

'IL Florida, private schools must meet State Board of Education standards, but there is no separateschool approval process. Homever, a private facility will be monitored when the LEA placing studentsthere is monitored.

bPrivate facilities' special education programs are approved and monitored separately from generalprivate schools and public schools, by an SEA division other than special education division. LEAmonitoring conducted by the SEA special education division ensures compliance with regard to IEPimplementation for sampled students who have been placed in privatefacilities.

cIn South Carolina, a private facility is only monitored when an LEA requests to place a student there.

111.149

193

Among the case study States, California, Connecticut, and New Jersey all

use a process id which private schools for the handicapped apply to the SEA

special education division for approval and must meet a number of

requirements, including compliance with EHA. In these States, local school

districts can only place students in approved private facilities to be

eligible for funding of these placements. The approval process may include

an on-site visit, and approval is granted for a specified length of time, .

typically three years. In New Jersey private schools for the handicapped

complete a self-study report in advance of site visits by the State special

education division staff during which the information provided in the report

is verified. This self-study, site visit process is on a three-year cycle,

in addition to annual submission of documents for continuation of approval.

In Illinois and Ohio, private schools are also subject to an approNal

process, but not by a procedure administered by the SEA special education

division. /n these States, approval is not necessarily granted for the

operation of special education programs. Rather, these States have a general

school approval process which includes private schools operating programs for

handicapped students. In Illinois, however, private school placements are

monitored when the LEA making the placement is undergoing its special

education compliance review. Note that in Ohio, the use of private schools

for the provision of special education programs is very rare. In Florida,

private schools are also ned rarely. While there is no formal school

approval process, private schools in Florida must meet State Board of

Education standards in order for LEAs to be able to contract with them for

the provision of special education, and students placed in private facilities

111.150

194

may be included in the individual student records review when the placing

district is monitored.

In Louisiana, private schools are subject to special education compliance

reviews during the time when the school district in which they are located is

being monitored, although the issues examined are less specific. In South

Carolina there is no general monitoring of private schools, but if an LEA

requests to place a student in a private facility, the facility would be

monitored for EHA compliance every three years while the student is in

attendance.

3. Summary

Under Federal regulations, all States are required to conduct compliance

monitoring reviews of all publicly-funded special education programs within

the State, including those in separate facilities administered by State and

local public, or private agencies.

Across States, the general procedures developed to comply with Federal

requirements are very similar for all public agency programs, and are based

on a cyclical process in which agencies are subject to a comprehensive

compliance review by the SEA at specified intervals. This cyclical process,

focused around an on-site review, is comprised of three phases: data

collection and review, on-site validation review, and reporting and followup.

The most variation among States is in the reporting and follow-up phase. Some

States use this final phase of the monitoring process to provide extensive

technical assistance geared toward program improvement. Other dimensions on

which State monitoring 'procedures differ include the interval at which

programs are monitored, the ese of off-site reviews in years when on-site

1.95

=

reviews are not conducted, the SEA division conducting the monitoring, the Use

of coordinated compliance reviews and the use of self-evaluations.

The process used to monitor private schools serving students with

handicaps differs substantially. In particular, there is greater variation

among States in whether approval of such facilities focuses on the unique type

of program (special education) being offered and whether all such facilities

are required to be monitored independently or primarily in conjunction with

LEA monitoring.

In responding to the Survey of SEA Special Educe 1 Divisions, virtually

all States (98%) agreed that monitoring has had its primary impact on ensuring

that all special education programs are meeting minimum Federal and State

reguiations and that compliancv reviews provide an opportunity to encourage

program improvements. Even though the monitoring process does not generally

address program quality, about half the States reported that the monitoring

process was increasingly focusing on program content and instructional issues.

States using a coordinated compliance review were less likely to report this

change in the focus of monitoring than were States which monitor special

education programs separately. Across all States responding to the Survey of

SEA Special Education Divisions, the format and content of monitoring

instruments and procedures, and the standards used in monitoring were reported

as the most important factors in influencing the effectiveness of compliance

monitoring systems.

SEA respondents reported that monitoring had had a positive impact across

all special education programs. but especially in programs operated by other

State agencies. Prior to implementation of P.L.94-142, the standards for

111.152

PG

special education programs operated by oiher State agencies were not usually

consistent with LEA programs in most States. The most common difference was

that teachers were not required to meet the same certification requirements

and the SEA had no authority to require them to do so. Under the general

supervision requirements of EHA, SEAs were granted a powerful tool fur

requiring other State agencies to meet SEA standards for special education

programs, and hence for effecting change at these facilities. Although the

case study States do not typically investigate program content or quality

during their compliance reviews, many SEA respondents reported that program

quality had improved most obviously in other State agency facilities with the

changes brought about through compliance monitoring. The compliance

monitoring process was also reported to be an effective method for identifying

technical assistance needs which in turn can effect changes to service

delivery and program quality.

111.153

197

III. SEA PROCEDURES: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, IN-SERVICE TRAINING,PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

A major role of State education agencies has traditionally been to

provide local education ,:gencies with information and assistance in solving

administrative problems, in maintaining and upgrading staff expertise and

skills, and in improving instructional programs and materials. EHA mandated

a more systematic role of the SEA in planning and providing technical

assistance, training, and information dissemination to the broad range of

special education providers. The 1975 Federal legislation required that SEAs

assess on a regular basis the need for program improvement and staff

development and prepare a Statewide plan to address identified needs. These

provisions of P.L. 94-142 recognized the unique capacity of the SEA to

organize and implement such efforts and made funds available which could be

used for them. Beyond those activities required by Federal regulations,

States also typically engage in a variety of other activities designed to

assist local education agencies and other special education providers to

improve the educational services delivered to students with handicaps.

This chapter focuses on how States design and implement technical

assistance, staff training, development of instructional materials or

approaches, and compilation and dissemination of state-of-the-art information

on programmatic issues. It describes the major ways in which these procedures

vary across States and summarizes the types of impacts the procedures may be

expected to have on separate facilities providing special education to

students with handicaps.

111.155

198

A. PLANNING FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

All States Are required to develop special education plans as part of

their applications for EHA-B funds, and most use task forces or advisory

committees to assist in the development of these plans, particularly in the

area of personnel development. These task forces or advisory committees

generally include representatives from higher education agencies, professional

associations, parent groups and various components of the delivery system.

In general, representatives of at least some types of separate facilities

(private and/or State-operated) are included on these advisory councils.

Florida and Connecticut are examples of two States that use panels of

experts and constituents to help formulate priorities for program improvement

and evaluation activities in areas beyond personnel development. Florida's

steering committees are composed of various experts and practitioners as well

as SEA special education staff and are organized around specific program areas

and/or handicapping conditions. Florida convenes a number of on-going

steering committees once a year to provide broad direction for SEA activities

in each program area, input into the development of resource manuais and other

laterials, and suggestions for special projects, task forces, and research

studies. Task forces are also widely used in Florida. Task forces have a

specific charge, usually to assess the need for specific action on the part

of the SEA and to make recommendations. For example, one task force

considered appropriate programing formulti-handicapped, particularly sensory

impaired students who are also emotionally disturbed. This task force held

five regional meetings across the State to hear from parents and local

111.156

1 95

educators and visited programs in other States, before preparing its own

concept paper and draft budget for a model program in Florida. Connecticut

also uses ad hoc task forces to obtain the information necessary for

formulating programmatic recommendations. One task force was convened to

develop a plan to evaluate the impact of special education services on the

development of wildly handicapped students.

Other States rely more on units or processes within the special education

division to initiate plans and priorities for program improvement and

evaluation efforts. In California, Louisiana, and New Jersey, for example,

there are specific units with responsibility for planning, evaluation, and

research within the special education division. In addition, New Jersey has

a number of standing committees among its staff on areas of particular

importance, lor example, private schools for handicapped students, and

conducts aralual retreats in which members of the division meet to formulate

goals for the division in the coming year.

States also vary in how they support local planning and evaluation

activities. Some, like California and Florida, have developed formal plans

and models for use at the local level. California has a Statewide system for

local evaluation and the SEA requires all local districts and county offices,

together or singly, to form special education local plan areas (SELPAs) and

has trained LEA staff in program evaluation. Florida funded a special project

to develop a guide for evaluating program quality and districts must include

specific long-range evaluation plans in their applications for ENA-B

entitleeent funds. The Special Education Regional Resource Centers (SERRCs)

111.157

200

in Ohio play a major role in gathering quantitative data on a number of

planning issuesincluding personnel development needs and transmitting this

information to the SEA central office.

Local public agencies such as local school districts and regional boards

of edlcation are commonly required by the State educational agency to develop

specific plans for training of special education personnel. Less likely to

be required to develop their own personnel development plans are private

schools and separate facilities operated by other State agencies. However,

in New Jersey, private schools and the SEA-operated School for the Deaf are

required to submit staff development plans. The unified school districts in

the other State agencies operating separate facilities in Connecticut are also

required to have such plans.

In summary, there are several major ways in which the case study States

differ in the planning mechanisms used to identify issues or target areas for

program improvement. Three (California, Louisiana, and New Jersey) have units

within the special education division of the SEA with that responsibility,

three others (Connecticut, Florida, and South Carolina) make extensive use of

task forces or committees of experts including those in other State agencies

serving persons with l'andicaps, and both California and Ohio rely upon a

system of input from local education agencies to provide information on

program needs across the State. However, although all States are involved in

planning and setting priorities for program improvements, the manner in which

the planning function is organized and carried out was nct reported by State

staff as having a major impact on the delivery of technical assistance and

other support services to separate facilities.

111.158

2o,,1L

B. SEA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INSERVICE TRAINING

Technical ass4stance and inservice training are distinct types of

activities and for the purposes of this study were defined as follows:

o Tec.hnical assistance - the provision of information to address

specific management or program issues identified by a facilityor agency or by a monitoring agency, generally provided onsite er by telephone consultation, occasionally throughmaterials or in conferences or workshops

o Inservice training - the development of specific skillsfor teachers, other instructional or related services staff,or administrators, primarily through classes, seminars,conferences, and workshops

However, in practice there is a great deal of overlap between these two types

of activities and States vary in whether they characterize similar activities

or programs as technical assistance or inservice training. Therefore, this

section discusses SEA technical assistance and inservice training activities

together.

Following implementation of EHA, several case study States noted that

a great deal of technical assistance and staff training was provided on

compliance and procedural issues related to Federal law and regulation,

particularly to local districts but also to State avencies operating separate

facilities. States also generally report current efforts underway to place

more emphasis on instructional issues rather than on procedural compliance.

This shift in emphasis coincides with the educational reform moveient and is

consistent with reports by a number of States, noted in the earlier chapAr

on monitoring procedures, that monitoring is focusing more on instructional

quality as procedural compliance is more afsured.

111.159

2n2

.1260.1

Four factors are particularly important in describing SEA technical

assistance and training activities:

o The role assumed by the SEA in coordinating and supportingstaff developient and technical assistance activities

o The link between the SEA's monitoring and technical assistanceactivities

o The use of resource/materials centers in the delivery oftechnical assistance and training

o The involvement of agencies and organizations other than theSEA in providing technical assistance and train.. `.11) specialeducation staff

1. Role of the SEA in Coordinatino and Sumortino TechnicalAssistance and Training

All States respond to specific requests for technical assistance and

staff training from individual facilities to the extent possible within budget

constraints and staff schedules. Illinois and California in particular

encourage districts to hire specialists to address specific needs at the

district and/or local facility level. Illinois ensures func.. 4 for these

local initiatives by requiring that LEAs set aside five percent ot their EHA-B

entitlement grants for personnel development activities.

How special education divisions are organized can affect coordination

and delivery of technical assistance and inservice training. Among the case

study States, Connecticut and Florida have designated units within their

special education divisions that plan, coordinate, and provide technical

assistance and training. In the other States, these activities were shared

among all cf. most of the staff, without the same degree of staff

111.160

specialization. For example, in California, Louisiana, and New Jersey units

or staff assigned to various regions of the State were routinely involved in

responding to requests for technical assistance and training as well as being

involved in other activities such as monitoring.

In the case study States, the involvement of the special education

division in the direct provision of training was reported to take place

primarily through Statewide or regional workshops or conferences. These

workshops and conferences are generally focused on special education issues

faced by local school districts rather than those particularly relevant to

State and private agencies operating separate facilities. At least in the

past, these workshops and conferences have often focused on procedural

compliance rather than instructional issues. For example, Statewide

conferences for special education administrators often deal with changes in

reporting requirements, grant application procedures, and State and Federal

regulations. Separate facilities, like other special education providers,

are sent mailings or notification of upcoming events from the State agency or

the Statewide or regional resource/materials center and can attend or not as

they choose.

Because information on basic procedural issues is now widely disseminated

and because of the emphasis on instructional issues most applicable to local

district programs, administrators and staff from separate facilities,

particularly those operated by private agencies and State agencies, often

chose not to attend general SEA-sponsored conferences, as reported by SEA

staff. However, most case study States make a special effort to conduct at

111.161

2n4

least some conferences on issues of interest to separate facilities, as well

as to special education staff in district programs. As an example of the

collaboration between many SEAs and the State-operated schools for sensory

impaired students in their States, the Illinois Special Education Division and

the State School for the Visually Impaired co-sponsor an annual vision

conference which presents state-of-the-art evaluation and instructional

techniques for this low-incidence population. A similar annual conference is

held by the New Jersey srhool for the Deaf for the deaf community, sponsored

by the State Department of Education's Division of Direct Services, and the

special education Learning Resource Center. Also in New Jersey, workshops

have been conducted in response to specific requests from staff at separate

facilities, for example on behavior management techniques. In another

example, South Carolina holds special symposia on priority areas such as

orthopedically handicapped students.

Florida also provides many examples of SEA-sponsored technical assistance

and training activities that are likely to be of interest to staff at separate

facilities. For example, recent offerings have included programs for teachers

of severely and profoundly handicapped students, workshops on meeting the

educational needs of medically involved children, weekends with experts on

visual impairments, and summer institutes on speech and language services for

the hearing impaired. Regular Statewide meetings are also held each year for

local supervisors and coordinators of special education in each specialty or

handicap area, in addition to workshops on administrative and regulatory

issues.

111.162

2. nk t2 1 I 9 1 I

States vary in how compliance monitoring procedures are linked with the

provision of technical assistance and training, as mentioned earlier in

Chapter V. In some -States technical assistance is providNi b- SEA staff

primarily in preparing for monitoring visits, particCarly on procedural and

regulatory issues. Monitoring procedures in all States involve some kind of

follow-up activity to ensure that compliance problems are rectified, but not

all routinely provide follow-up technical assistance to assist districts

and/or facilities to correct compliance problems noted during monitoring.

Follow-uo technical assistance on compliance issues is routinely provided in

California and Illinois. It is available upon request in South Carolina,

although the State is in the process of routinizing this link between

monitoring and technical assistance. Ohio is an example of a State that

places a high priority on providing recommendations for program improvements

as part of monitoring and following these mommendations with technical

assistance during the last stage of the monitoring process. The interaction

between monitoring and technical assistance was seen as critical by SEA staff

in Ohio in the success of their efforts to influence programmatic improvements

in all special education programs, including those et separate facilities.

3. its:lep_f_jmiacclaterialCenters

In most of the case study States, one or more special education

resource/materials centers are funded by the SEA, with at least part of their

mandate the provision of technical assistance and training. The variety of

such centers is described below:

111.163

206

o Connecticut has a ringle Special Education Resource CentertaERC) which operates a materials center/library and providesweekly .1'n-service activities for special education staff fromacross the State.

o Florioa's eighteen-center Florida Diagnostic and LearningResource System (FDLRS) serves every region in the State andincludes several specialized centers Ala provide servicesStatewide.

o Illinois has a specialized instructional materials center forthe visually imWred that is operated under contract by anLEA.

o The Louisiana Learning Resources System :LLRS) specializes inmaterials and inservice for the he,ring impaired, visually*paired, and deaf-blind as well as other low-incidencepopulations.

o New Jersey's primary delivery agent for technical assistanceand inservice training is the Learning Resource Center (LRC)system whici, has four branches throughout the State. Thespecial education consultant at each branch works closely withState special education division staff in planning anddeveloping workshops and technical assistance activities,which are coordinated through needs assessment based on theCSPD and monitoring.

o Ohio's sixteen Special Education Regional Resource Centers(SERRCs) include within them Instructional Resource Centers(IRCs) which plan and carry out inservice training andtechnical assistance on a regional basis; in addition, theOhio SEA funds a statewide IRC focused on low incidence andseverely handicappr4 students.

California's Special Education Resource Network (SERN), before recent budget

cuts, used local staff and consultants organized into thirteen regional units

to deliver technical assistance and training; restoration of some of the cuts

in funding apparently was not sufficient to revive this network. Also due to

budgetary pressures, South Carolina no longer funds a resource/materials

center in special education.

111.164

2t)

Services provided by the centers may include any of the following, many

of which were reported to be particularly relevant to staff at separate

facilities:

o Identification and assessment support or training services

o Maintenance/acquisition of materials (e.g., special educationjournals, directories of special education programs,curriculum, braille or large print books and audiovisualmaterials)

o Information on compliance/legal issues (e.g., development anduse of IEPs or training/support in due process or proceduralsafeguards) '

o Awareness training for general education teachers oradministrators and coordination of general educationand special education efforts

o Information and training on instructionalstrategies/techniques, classroom management, and promisingpractices/models or research

o Provision of/guidance in the use of various instructionaltechnologies and materials

o Courses for continuing certification credit

o Referrals to other agencies for evaluation or support services

o Family/parent support

o Transition/life skills programs and vocational educationprograms

The unique functions of the centers, as distinct from activities in which

staff in the SEA's special education division also routinely participate, tend

to be materials collection, dissemination, and production. These activities

are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

111.165

2 0

Indicative of the relative importance of these centers in the State's

efforts to provide support to special education staff is the proportion of

the EHA-B grant to the State that is allocated for funding of the centers (see

Table IV.4). In both*Florida and Ohio, where a large network of regional and

Statewide resource/materials centers engage in a wide range of activities,

the proportion of EHA-B funds allocated to the centers is about 18 percent of

the State's total grant. For all States, the average is about 4 percent and

the median is one percent. Of course, additional funds may be provided from

other sources, including from State appropriations, although the case study

States generally indicated that the majority of funds for these centers came

from EHA-B grants.

4. Role_of Stat eaionalTechnical Assistance and Trainina

In most States, other agencies or organizational entities provide

technical assistance and training in special education, in addition to the SEA

special education staff and the resource/materials centers. As mentioned

earlier, many State-operated schools for hearing and/or visually impaired

students, either independently or in conjunction with the SEA, offer their

specialized experience and expertise to LEAs and to other providers of

services to sensory impaired populations. The case study States generally

also reported that other State agencies, particularly those dealing with

mental retardation and emotional disturbance among children, provide technical

assistance and inservice training to staff at their own facilities and

potentially to staff at other facilities as well. Many of these services are

111.166

internal programs developed to address specialized concerns related to the

particular population served at facilities operated by the agency. Once

established, however, the SEA may request the agency to provide specialized

assistance to local districts or other facilities, usually in the form of

workshops or conferences, assistance in individual student evaluation, and

provision of specialized equipment and instructional materials.

In Connecticut, for example, there is a close working relationship

between the special education unit of the SEA and the Department of Mental

Retardation (DMR). SEA staff have often drawn upon the expertise of DMR staff

on issues of educatiai for the severely handicapped and early intervention

strategies. Particularly at the time of the case study, when LEAs were

assuming responsibility for school-age students formerly residing in DMR

facilities, DMR staff were involved in technical assistance and in-service

training for LEAs on curriculum development, the physical/medical needs of

these students, and integration of related services personnel (e.g.,

occupational and physical therapists) into the total special education team.

Other specialized providers of services to handicapped students that may

be frequently involved in technical assistance and training for LEAs and other

programs include regional or intermediate educational agencies such as

Ccnnecticut's Regional Educational Service Centers. While these Centers

primarily provide day services to districts within their region, each also

hJs a Statewide mandate (such as migrant children education or adult special

education) and provides some staff training and information dissemination

services similar to those of the resource/materials center.

111.167

21.0

-.1.01111.

Some States use networks of experts from several sectors to provide such

services. In Louisiana the Network of Personnel Serving Students with Low

Incidence and Severe Handicaps includes university staff, staff involved in

State-funded technical assistance projects, LEA staff, and SEA staff with

specialized expertise and skills. The primary function of this network is to

provide technical assistance to programs serving the targeted students,

linking staff across the State who have similar problems and needs and making

referrals to both in- and out-of-State technical assistance projects.

5. lam=

All States provide technical assistance and staff training services to

special education providers through the SEA's special edurAtion division and

generally also through other State agencies involved in the operation of

separate facilities for children and youth with handicaps. The major

differences in the delivery of these services across the case study States

are summarized in Table 111.1. These differences are in (1) the degree of

specialization among State special education staff in providing technical

assistance to providers, (2) whether the moniLoring process involves a

direct link with the provision of technical assistance, (3) whether a

resource/materials center or system exists, and (4) the degree of

regionalization and/or specialization of the resource/materials centers.

Two of thAse factors do not appear to affect the provision of technical

assistance and training services to separate facilities differently than those

to other facilities. All special education programs in a State have access

111.168

TABLE 111.1

MAR DIFFERENCES MOND CASE STUDY STATESIN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MIO TRAINING

SEA Staff Follow-op TR Organization ofSpecialization in Limbs/with Special Education

California Staff assigned to Automated tracking 13 regional unit; of

region provide TA system; follow-up TA resource network'

and monitoring on compliance issues

Connecticut Special unit for TA Follow-up TAavailable on request

Florida Special unit for TA; Follow-up TA

Monitoring unit available on requestseparate

Illinois

Louisiana

New Jersey

All staff provideboth TA andmonitoring

Staff assigned toregions provide TAand monitoring

Regional staff

provide TA andmonitoring of LEAs:

central office staffassigned to regions

provide monitoringof state-operatedand privatefacilitios TA

providod byresource/materialscan, r

Routine follow-up TAon coepliance issues

Follow-up TAavailable on request

Centralized center

18 regional centers

plus moral State-wide centers

Center specinlizesin visual

impairments

Centers *scion?"in semelc.y and low-

incidence

ispairmonts

Follow-up TA 4 regional centwrsavailable on request

Ohio Staff provide TA and Routine follow-up TA 16 regional centers

monitoring as on compliance and plus one State-wide

unified activity programigwomment center

issues

South Carolina Staff provide TA and Follow-up TAmonitoring available on »quest

None

SOURCE: Information collected durioj site visits conducted in 1987.

'Recent budget cuts have eliminated this.

111.169

212

to SEA staff and to special education resource/materials centers. However,

technical assistance and in-service training provided by SEA staff and

resource/materials centers were generally reported to be of relevance most

often to staff at local districts rather than separate facilities.

On the other hand, a routine link between monitoring and technical

assistance in cases where separate facilities aye monitored directly by SEA

special education staff and specialization of the focus of resource/materials

centers and SEA staff on programmatic issues associated with low incidence and

severe handicaps were more likely to be reported to impact separate

facilities.

C. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Program development encompasses a broad range of activities undertaken

by the special education divisions of State education agencies. Th.,PI

activities may include developing guidelines for student evaluation and

planning of individual programs, instructional models or materials for

particular subjects or categories of students, or resource manuals for local

activities such as interagency networks. The SEA may also be involved in the

development of standardized curricula, competency testing specifications, and

graduation requirements for special education students in States where

educational reform has mandated these for the general education system. As

with other areas of SEA activities, the focus of program development efforts

has generally been on special education programs operating with local school

districts. However, some SEAs have also taken the lead in developing

111.170

2 1. 3

guidelines for severely or multiply impaired students who may be served in


Unlike the long-standing focus of SEA activities on technical assistance

and training, program-development has been less consistently emphasized as a

major part of the State's mandate for special education. This may be due, at

least partly, to the emphasis in some States on local autonomy in selection

of instructional materials, content, and approach in the American educational

sybtem, although with the general edvation reform movement has come

dvelopment of Statewide mandated curricula and materials. Among the case

study States, there is considerable variation in the degree and type of SEA

involvement in program development activities, as illustrated below:

o California has a Program, Curriculum and Training unit withinthe special education division but is not invrlved in

developing Statewide curricula or instructional meter Is for

special education. The division of State special schools,however, has developed progranguilelines and anew curriculumfor the State Schools for the Deaf,

o Connecticut also has only limited involvement in curriculumdevelopment, but has developed manuals on identification,referral, and general nrogramguidelines for learnirg disabledand emotionally disturbed students. The SEA also funded thedevelopment by a regional education agency of a data-basedmodel for program planning ft severely handicapped students.

o Florida's Program Development unit within the specialeducation division is organized by handicap group and itsmajor emphasis in recent years has been on the expansionof State-mandated general education curriculum frameworks andperformance standards to the special education system.

o Illinois has not been involved in curriculum developmentper se but has developed prototypes of forms for conductingsuch procedures as screening, placement, and re-evaluation ofindividual students.

_

21 4

o In 1981 Louisiana developed separate standards based onfunctional criteria from which special education teachers arerequired to teach with the SEA maintaining the right ofapproval of locally developed curricula and programs.Louisiana is also involved in developing a model system forinteragency coordination of services to severely handicappedstudents.

o New Jersey does not have a mandated State-wide curriculum, butthe Regional Curriculum Services Units have as their primaryfocus rtudent testing and curriculum issues, although notspecific to special education. Since handicapped students arerequired to take the mandatory high school graduation testexcept as exempted in their IEP, the mi:SUs have targetedtechnical assistance on student testing and preparation toState facilities and private schools for the handicapped. Inaddition, there have been some special projects such as thedevelopment of assessment and evaluation guidelines forheariog impaired students.

o In Ohio, program development is addressed by the SERRCs andby the SEA staff who provide technical assistance during themonitoring process.

o South Carolina assembles task for:es of program administratorsto make programmatic recommendations on specific issues.Materials are being developed in certain areas such as socialskill development for adolescents.

Based on these brief dtxscriptions of State-level activities, States appear to

have most often focused their program development efforts on helping LEAs

identify, evaluate, and serve severely handicapped students and those with

low incidence conditions.

Program development is a resource-intensive activity. It must begin with

considerable staff input and expertise and requires additional effort to

develop the consensus required within the education community before materials

or approaches are accepted and used. In general, State divisions of special

education, like most areas of State government, do not have the resources to

initiate many program development projects in addition to their mandated

111.172

215

functions of compliance monitoring, grants management, data processing and

reporting, and.response to requests for technicel 45s!stance and training

support. Instead, resource/materials centers are reported to be the primary

producers of specialized instructional materials among all the r,tates (as

noted in the section above).

However, the level of resources required by program development is not

the only factor influencing these activities. The existence of Statewide

mandated curriculum or graduation requirements for general education and the

degree to which special education is integrated into these requirements

appears to be a key factor in understanding SEA special education program

development activities. Among the case study States, California, Connecticut,

Florida, and Illinois have Statewide requirements for curricula for LEA

general education programs; Florida and Louisiana have developed specific

requirements for special education.

In Florida, as in many othcir States, more stringent and detailed

curriculum and graduation requirements emerged as par" of a general push for

excellence. In the late 1970s compulsory testing showed low State averages

compared to national norms. k, a result, State-level testing was initiated

for selected grades and a curriculum framework aim at increasing consistency

across the State was adopted. Corresponding student performance standards for

exceptional students were developed later as a joint effort of the SEA, local

school districts, and other members of the special education community.

Special education students need the same courses for graduation as general

education students, but modifications may be made in terms of:

111.173

2 1 6

_

o Increasing or decreasing instructional time

o Varying.the mode of instruction

o The use of special communications systems

o Accommodating.handicapping conditions in test administrationor evaluation

In addition, a catalog of unique skills was developed to meet the

instructional needs of exceptional students in developing living, social,

learning and communication skills. The special educAtion curriculum

frameworks apply in separate facilities as well as in local public school

programs.

In summary, the case study States vary in how extensively the SEA special

education division or agencies related to it are involved in program

development activities related to curriculum and instructional approaches.

Table 111.2 indicates that most States are not involved in these activities

across the broad spectrum of handicapping conditions and that in Florida,

where this is the case, it is a direct result of a mandate to apply Statewide

curriculum requirements to the special education system. Thus, in most States

instructional approaches at separate facilities, as well as at other special

education settings, are not generally directly affected by SEA program

development procedures.

D. DISSEMINATION

Dissemination of up-to-date information on special education regulations,

procedures (such as identification, assessment, and development of IEPs),

111.174

217

TABLE 111.2

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG CASE STUDY STATESIN ?ROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

State Mandate for Unit Within SEASpecial Education Special Education

Curriculum Division

California No Yes

Connecticut No No

Florida Yes Yes

Illinois No No

Louisiana Yes No

New Jersey No No

Ohio No No;

Delegated toResource/Materials

Centers

South Carolina No Task Forces

SOURCE: Information collected during site visits in 1987.

111.175

218

instructional and other classroom techniques (for instance, in behavior

management), and educational materials and products to a wide variety of

audiences, including staff at separate facilities, is a mandated activity for

State education agencies under EHA. Among the case study States, the most

frequent SEA-supported procedures for dissemin:tion were publications or

notices, collections of documents and equipment available for review and/or

loan, and State-level workshops and conferences.

All States disseminate information on an as-needed basis via brief

publications or notices, but the degree to which the process is formalized

varies greatly from State to State. In California, Illinois, and South

Carolina, for instance, no formal division of labor among State special

education staff exists with regard to dissemination; any staff member may

distribute materials and respond to information requests. In such cases, the

other responsibilities assigned to individual staff members are likely to

compete with time available for information dissemination. Two case study

States, Florida and Louisiana, have specifically designated SEA staff whose

job it is to facilitate the flow of information to regional and local

entities. In 1.ouisiana, for instance, one SEA staff member has been given

responsibility for disseminating information through the Lanser electronic

mail network, as a part-time assignment. Florida's Clearinghouse/Information

Center has a full-time SEA staff member responsible for its activities, funded

entirely by EHA-B funds. The Center has three functions: (1) maintenance of

a lending library of instructional materials, specializing in films and

Florida-developed materials, (2) dissemination of all materials developed for

111.176

2 1 (

Statewide distribution, including copies of publication and materials lists

from the Center:, and of any materials identified by the resource/materials

center staff as of Statewide interest. and (3) development of curriculum and

other materials, suth as the curriculum for severely and profoundly

handicapped students and a parent training package being developed jointly

with the Educational Testing Service.

In States where resource/materials centers have the primary

responsibility for technical assistance and training, they also usually have

responsibility for dissemination activities as well. Five of thiseven case

study States (Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Ohio) that

reported utilizing centers for the delivery of technical assistance and

in-service training also reported that these centers had major responsibility

for dissemination within the State. Activities provided by these centers

ranged from compiling and maintaining literature or instructional materials

to conducting workshops. Some, like Connecticut's resource/materials center,

publish their own newsletters to disseminate information on special education

topics. All centers in the case study States are open to educators from all

facilities and to the parents of handicapped children.

The Learning Resource Center (LRC) libraries in New Jersey are an example

of a center-based dissemination system. Each center maintains approximately

$800,000 worth of materials including A/V materials for in-service training,

a production center (for posters and special classroom materials), and a

curriculum lab where teachers can conduct computer searches and review

curricula collected from both in-State and out-of-State programs. Individuals

111.177

22u

become members by paying an annual fee of two dollars. Members also receive

a resource report, listings updates and abstracts of recent acquisitions and

schedules for workshops. In addition, a mobile van delivers materials to

facilities around the State. The resource/materials centers in Florida

provide very similar services.

However, workshops and conferences are undoubtedly the single most

important vehicle for direct SEA dissemination of information. Vivtually all

SEAs participate in the planning and delivery of workshops or conferences by

setting the agendas, providing the funding or release time, and/or actually

conducting of the workshops including locating or providing speakers and

halls. Workshops and conferences are typically used for transferring state-

of-the-art information on specific conditions, promising practices, or

compliance related issues, as discussed in the earlier section on technical

assistance and training. Among the case study States, the following topics,

other than dissemination of information on changes in regulations and forms

related to compliance, were mentioned as recently covered in Statewide or

regional workshops:

o Instructional approaches specifically for severely orprofoundly handicapped students

o Behavior management techniques

o Non-discriminatory identification or evaluation of students

o Programs for general education teachers to increase awarenessof the needs of handicapped students and of instructionalapproaches that are successful in meeting those needs

o Planning and programming for life skills development andschool-to-work transition

111.178

221

o Creation of collaborative efforts between public and privateeducational and other agencies serving children and youth withhandicaps

Separate facilities, like LEAs, are notified about these workshops and

conferences, but participation was reported to vary greatly depending on the

topic addressed.

As summarized in Table 111.3, like program development, dissemination of

information is not an activity generally assigned to specific staff or units

within the SEA's special education division. The divisions generally provide

this service through the efforts of individual staff. However, many States

also allocate funds to their resource/materials centers specifically to

collect special education information and liaterials and to ensure their

availability to providers, including separate facilities.

E. SUMMARY

States, through the special education divisions of the SEA, are routinely

involved in providing technical assistance, conducting training, and

disseminating information to administrators and staff in special education

programs Statewide, either directly or through organizations supported by SEA-

administered funds. The involvement of the SEA in the development of

curricula, instructional materials, and other products to be used in the

delivery of special education services, other than forms and manuals on

procedural or regulatory issues, is more variable across the States.

Overall, among the case study States, California and Florida (and Ohio

if the coordinated monitoring-technical assistance effort is considered)

111.179

222

TABLE 111.3

'MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG CASE STUDY STATESIN DISSEMINATION

--kajor RolePlayed by

Resource/Mggerials Center

Specific SEASpecial EducationStaff Assigned

California No No

Connecticut No Yes

Florida Yes Yes

Illinois No No

Louisiana Yes Yes

New Jersey No Yes

Ohio No Yes

South Carolina No NA

SOURCE: Information collected during site visits conducted in 1987.

NA - No resource/materials center.

111.180

2?3

'

allocate more than half of their State special education staff resources to

the full range of these support activities, as indicated in Chapter III. The

other major differences among the case etudy States in the way in which they

plan and provide teanical assistance, training, program development, and

dissemination services are:

o Specialization within the SEA special education division withspecific staff assigned to organiza and/or provide theseservices, with such specialization for at least someactivities being found in California, Connecticut, Florida,and Louisiana

o Use of resource/materials centers funded by the SEA to providethese services, with wide mandates for these centers found inConnecticut, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio

o Link between monitoring activities and provision of technicalassistance, found to be closest in Ohio, but in most otherStates (California, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, and SouthCarolina) the same staff are involved in both mnitoring andtechnical assistance

o Existence of a State-mandated special education curriculum,in Florida and Louisiana

Independent of the specific approaches to these services, State

respondents generally reported that they were a major vehicle for making

improvements in the content and methods of instruction in special education

programs in all settings. However, SEA staff acknowledged that the focus of

many of these activities is on special education programs within local

districts, and that the participation of separate facilities was highly

variable. Therefore, the impect on the educational programs specifically at

separate facilities was also expected to be variable, depending to a A.ge

degree on the participation by staff at the facilities in the opportunities

provided by the SEA.

111.181

224

IV. SUMMARY OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCEDURES

A primary goal of the Study of Programs of Instruction for Handicapped

Children and Youth in Day and Residential Facilities was to describe

procedures used by State educational agencies to improve the instructional

programs at separate day and residential facilities. In meeting this goal.

State-level case studies were conducted in eight States and a survey was

conducted of the SEA special education divisions in all States and the

District of Columbia to provide systematic data on the similarities and

differences in SEA procedures nationally. These data collection activities

obtained information on:

o The organizational structure of State special educationsystems, including patterns of use of separate facilities

o The special education procedures and practices of SEAs withregard to allocation of funds, educational standards,compliance monitoring, in-service training and technicalassistance, and program development and informationdissemination, particularly as these affected separatefacilities

This chapter summarizes the variation found among State special education

systems and describes for each of the SEA procedures examined, the influence

on educational practice at separate ilities for students with handicaps to

be examined in the facility-level case study analyses, reported in Part Three.

A. STATE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

The pattern of special education service delivrry as it exists today in

a State has been influenced by the economic health of the State, the

population of students served in th- special education system, State special

111.183

225

education and general education legislation, and the impact of interest

groups, the couits, and other State agencies providing special education to

handicapped children. While these factors have influenced state use of

separate facilities, all have only an indirect impact on improvement to

prolram; at separate facilities, as indicated below:

o Across States, .there was no consistent re!,tionship bets ,enState economic health and the approaches used to imps especial education programs.

o Worsening economic conditions in specific States have made itdifficult for them to undertake significant educationinitiatives, although economic difficulties have improvedinteragency cooperation in the provision of services tohandicapped students.

o In States experiencing economic growth and development,special education prettrams have not always benefited, as someStates. have opted to focus increased availability ofeducational funds on general education reform programs.

o Increases in student population were reported to be a forcein maintaining or increasing the use of separate facilitiesdue to increasing desands for other educational envirnnments.

o Special education legislation and general education reforminitiatives have had little direct focus on programs inseparate facilities at the time of the case study datacollection in 1988.

o Court cases were reported to have played an influential roleon policies affecting where students receive special educationand related services, and advocacy group action!, have madeimportant contributions to improvements in programming atseparate facilities.

B. STRUCTURE OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS

The case study States exemplify a wide variety of special education

systems. In some States, a multitude of local, intermediate, and State

agencies are involved in the provision of special education services in

separate facilities. In others, the special education system is comprised of

111.184

A:"

-

a small number of State and regional agencies, while in others, special

education in separate facilities is largely the responsibility of State

agencies or consortia of districts. The organization of a State's special

education system was .issociated with the number and type of students served

in separate facilities but was not reported as a factor necessarily

influencing programs in those facilities.

Each of the case study States has at least one independent division of

the State education agency devoted to special education, and these division

are typically organized by function (i.e., program services, compliance

monitoring), in some cases within geographic regions, rather than by

handicapping condition. The States also vary a great deal in terms of

allocation of vtaff across functions. However, the organization of the

special education division was not reported by the States as a major factor

in how specific SEA procedures might affect program improvements in separate

facilities. The links reported between the structure of a State's special

education system and programs at separate facilities can be summarized as

below:

o The strongest impact of SEA special education procedures wasgenerally reported in local district programs, rather than inseparate facilities operated by State or private agencies.

o In many cases, the jurisdictional barriers among Stateagencies operating separate facilities, particularly agencieswith independent fiscal authority, have hampered Stateeducation agency efforts to bring about change in thesefacilities.

o The d:yfIlopment of special interagency structures tofacilitate coordination of educational services to handicappedstudents has improved the ability of SEAs to affect change inseparate faelities operated by other State agencies.

111.185

227

C. SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING

The case stUdy States use a wide variety of mechanisms to fund special

education programs for students with handicaps, and the funding mechanisms

tend to vary by facility operator. The only common funding method among case

study States is that SEA-operated residential facilities are usually funded

through direct State appropriation. Findings related to the impact of SEA

funding procedures on separate facilities follow:

o The major impact of State funding procedures is in theircapacity to influence the use of separate facilities throughthe implementation of funding incentives and disincentives.

o The methods used by States to fund special educationplacements have little impact on the programs offered byseparate facilities.

o An important mechanism for States to impact programs inseparate facilities is the availability of Federal funds(i.e., ERA-8 set-aside and Chapter 1 of ESEA (SOP) funds)which can be used to implement State-established prioritiesand initiatives, or for the provision of support services.Federal funds are a major source of funds used for theextensive technical assistance and program improvement effortsundertaken through State-wide resource/materials center andprovide seed money for pilot projects alid evaluation efforts.

D. SPECIAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE MONITC IG

All States set educational ndards in the areas of staff certificdtion

and program content ln an attempt to affect the quality of education programs,

but educational standards by themselves were not reported to be instrumental

as agents of change to programs in separate facilities. Rather, the ability

of the SEA to ensure implementation of standards through compliance monitoring

was found to be an important technique for effecting change in separate

facilities.

111.186

2)s

The compliawm monitoring processes used by States is very similar,

focusing on a cyclical process in which agencies are subject to a

comprehensive compliance review by the SEA at specified intervals. States do

not typically vary their monitoring procedures for special education programs

in publicly operated separate facilities. The most variation among case study

States in the monitoring process was in the reporting and follow-up phase.

Other dimensions on which State monitoring procedures differ include the

interval at which programs are monitored, the use of off-site reviews, the

staff conducting the monitoring, the use of coordinated compliance reviews,

and the use of self-evaluations. The monitoring process for private

facilities differs substantially from the process used to monitor public

agency programs, and only some States monitor private facilities separately

from sampling and examination of individual student placements during LEA

monitoring.

Regardless of the approach used to monitor the various types of agencies,

the impacts of the monitoring process were found to be similar across 3tates:

o States agreed that monitoring is most useful for ensuring thatall special education programs are meeting minimum Federal andState regulat'ons, but also provides an opportunity to

encourage ie2rovements in special education programs.

o States reported that the greatest impact of the monitoringprocess was in facilities operated by non-education agenciesas the Federal monitoring and general supervision requirements

provide States with a powerful tool for requiring other Stateagencies to meet SEA standards for special education programs.

o Compliance monitoring is an effective method for identifyingtechnical assistance needs which in turn can affect changesto service delivery and program quality.

o The ,-,;11ty of compliance monitoring to influence programimpm. Aent was reported to be particularly effective inStates with a strong link between the monitoring and technicalassistance systems.

111.187

2 99

E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, IN-SERVICE TRAINING, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,AND DISSEMINATION

All States are routinely involved in the provision of technical

assistance, in-service training and information dissemination to

administrators and staff in special education programs Statewide:, either

direct:), or through organizations supportid by SEA-administered funds. The

involvement o4 the SEA in the development of curricula, instructional

materials, and other products for the delivery of special education services

is more variable across the States. States also differ in the proportion of

staff resources allocated to theso su lrt activities. Other major

differences among the case study States in these areas are in the degree of

specialization among State special education staff in providing technical

assistance, the link between compliance monitoring and the provision of

technical assistance, the existence and regionalization of resource/materials

centers, and the existence of a Statewide mandated curriculum.

Regardless of the approach used to deliver technical assistance and

training, program development and information dissemination activities, these

support services were reported to be a major vehicle for making improvements

in the content and methods of instruction in special education programs in all

settings. In general, staff of separate facilities have access to the same

technical assistance and training activities as other staff but the focus of

most such activiti,J is on special education programs within local districts;

thus the participation of separate facility staff is highly variable. The

impact of these procedures on separate facilities was expected to vary

depending to a large degrie on the participation level of staff from separate

facilities.

111.188

23u

F. SUMMARY

In summary,'SEA procedures can affect both the placement of students in

separate facilities and improvements to programs in such facilities, although

in general these procedures are not designed specifically with regard to

special education programs in separate facilities. The structure of State

special education sYstems and the methods used to distribute funds for special

education programs are important factors in influencing the placement of

students in separate facilities. The State compliance monitoring system is

one of the best methods available to States for identifying technical

assistance needs, and the provision of technical assistance, in-service

training, and to a less extent program development is seen as an effective

method for initiating and supporting program improvements. The availability

of Federal funds is important in assisting States to develop their

capabilities for technical assistance, training, program development,

and dissemination, particularly through EHA-B funds used for State

resource/materials centers.

Table VII.1 summarizes the distribution of the case study States on the

key elements expected to impact program improvement in separate facilities.

These elements include the functional priorities of SEA staff as determined

by staff allocation across functions, the use of Federal set-aside funds, the

degree to which compliance monitoring is used to identify technical assistance

needs, the involvement of SEA staff in compliance monitoring and technical

assistance activities, and the existence of resource/materials centers which

can provide technical assistance to separate facilities. For example, as

shown on Table IV.1, across all State procedures examined in this study,

111.189

232

TARLE IV.1

DLSTRIBUTION OF CASE STUDY STATES ON FACTORSPOTENTIALLY IMPORTANT IN AFFECTING PROGRAM

IMMluvEllENT IN SEPARATE FACILITIES

State

State

StructureFunctional Priorities

of SEA Staff

Funding

Use of FeddralSet-Aside Funds

tanderds

Li

Monitorino and TA

Technical Assistame and Training

SEA Staff SpecializationExistence of

Resource Centers

California Technical Assistance

Connecticut Technical Assistance

and Compliance

Monitoring

Florida

Illinois

Louisiana

Program Development,Technical Assistance,

and Personnel Development

Planning and Management,Compliance Monitoring

Pupil Appraisal and

Interagency Liaison

New Jersey Planning and Management,Compliance Monitoring

and Mediation

Ohio Compliance Monitoring(including technical

assistance)

South Compliance Monitoring andCarolina Planning and Menagoment

Mbst prwiided as flowthrough to LEAS

Pilot projects and otheractivities

Resource Centers

Resource Centers andother activities

Competitive grants

Most provide.; gs flowthrough to LEAS

Resource Centers

Mdst provided as flowthrough to LEAS

iloderate

Moderate

Regional staff provide

technical assistanceand monitoring

Sp:tie] technical

assistance unit

Low Special technical

assistance unit;monitoring unitseparate

Moderate All staff provide both


High Regional staff provide


Moderate

Very high

Low'

Regional staff providetechnical assistance

and monitoring

Staff provide technical

assistance and moni-toring as unifiedactivity

Staff provide technical

assistance and moni-toring

13 regional units of

resource network'

Centralized center

18 regional centersplus several state-

wide centers

Center specializes invisual impairments

Center specializes in

sensory and lowincidence impair-ments.

4 regional centers

16 regional centersplus one statewide

center

None

'At the time of the 1987 site visit, budget cuts had eliminated this network. It may have since been restored.

'At the time of the 1987 site visit, revised procedures were being implemented which more closely linked the provision of technical assistante withmonitoring.

Florida tends to focus on the provision of techni-al assistance. This is

evidenced by the fact that the functional priorities of the SEA staff are

program development and technical assistance. Federal set-aside funds are

used primarily for the resource/materials centers, with 18 regional centers

and several statewide centers which are involved in technical assistance

activities; compliance monitoring activities are used to identify technical

assistance needs; and there is a speciai technical assistance unit in the SEA

which is separate from the compliance monitoring unit. Across the other case

study States, there is less consistency in the emphasis placed on technical

assistance, but the table indicates that California, Connecticut and Ohio also

provide strong support in this area.

Despite the focus on technical assistance activities in a State, there

are overriding contextual factors which will influence the ability of the SEA

to affect programs in separate facilities. While the economic conditions of

the State do not appear to De directly related to the ability of SEAs to

implement improvements to programs, jurisdictional barriers among State

agencies operating separate facilities, particularly agencies with independent

fiscal authority, may hamper State eduation agency efforts to bring about

change in separate facilities.

I It.M.1t

- , , 7-c, ""t




PART THREE: FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICEAT SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

2 !

I. CHANGES IN STUDENT POPULATION AND MISSIONAT SEPARATE FACILITIES

The Study of Programs of Instruction for Handicapped Children and Youth

in Day end Residential Facilities was designed to examine changes in separate

iacilities since the implementation of P.L. 94-142 and to identify factors

which affected changes in educational programs and instructional practices at

separate facilities. There have been marked changes in the student

populations at separate facilities since the passage of the Education of the

Handicapped Act in 1975. Changes in the number and characteristics of

students served at separate facilities were found in this study to be a major

factor related to ocher changes in facility programming.

This chapter examines the changes over the past ten to twelve years in

the populations of students with handicaps served in separate facilities using

several data sources. The Survey of Separate Facilities conducted in 1988

provides national estimates of changes in the student population at separate

facilities. Changes werE measured in two ways: (1) by comparing data from

the 1978-79 Office of Civil Rights Survey of Special Purpose Facilities with

comparable data from the 1988 OSEP Survey of Separate Facilities for

facilities surveyed in both studies, and (2) by analyzing retrospective

reports for 1976, obtained on the 1988 Survey, from current administrators of

facilities in operation in both 1976 and 1988. Information from the twenty-

four case study facilities is used to expand upon t'le quantitative data about

changes at separate facilities and to provide insight into the process and

implications of changes in student populations.

III. 195

2n

A. CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

The Office bf Civil Rights (OCR) conducted a study of State-operated and

supported separate (or special purpose) facilities in operation during the

1978-79 school year.' However, this study did not include all separate

facilities, as evidenced by the difference between the total number of

students served in the schools included in the OCR study (95,473) and the

approximately 230,300 students in all separate schools and "other

environments" (including institutions and residential schools) reported for

the same time period by the States to the Federal Office of Special Education

Programs (Office of Special Education, 1981). Also, between 1979 and 1988

various separate facilities have closed, while others have opened. Therefore,

the OCR and OSEP survey samples do not overlap exactly, permitting comparable

study of all facilities between the two points in time. However, 487 separate

facilities were identified which had responded to both the 1978-79 OCR survey

and the 1988 OSEP survey. These facilities are the focus of the following

analysis of changes in numbers of students served over the past ten years.

Since 1979, the number of students served in the separate day facilities

previously surveyed by OCR increased slightly (by 875 students or about 4

percent), while the number of students in separate residential facilities

decreased dramatically (by 10,568 students or 24 percent). However, these

changes were not evenly distributed across public and private facilities, as

shown in Table 1.1.

HI. 196

-

TABLE 1.1

CHANGES IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED

IN SEPARATE FACILITIES SL*VEYED IN 1979 AND 1988

I t_.4. 3 44.7 177AIIMOIMMIIIIIILV177,Vtramm-a171ramarmmunommarnrulta:11EMM/7171

ay_figinuaTotal Weber ofStudents Served 5,320 14,521 19,841 7,136 13,580 20,716 +34.1 -6.5 .4.4

Total Number of

Facilities 50 142 192 50 142 192 50 142 192

Residential Fecilities

Total Number ofStudents Served 31,802 11,912 43,714 19,053 14,093 33,146 -40.1 +18.3 -24.2

Total Number of

Facilities 163 132 295 163 132 205 163 132 2S:

*SOURCE: 1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities.

bSOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this study for the Office of Special Education Programs.

NOTE: Because the facilities represented in this table were a nonrandom subset of the tot:1 population of facilities- -that is, they were selectedbecause they had previously been surveyed in the 1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purwse Facilities which did not include the full universe offacilities in operation at that time - -the statistics presented here are not based on weighted data and cannot be generalized to 211 facilitiesthat may have btan in existence since 1979.

2:49

The public separate day schools in operation since 1979 had an increase

of 34 percent in the sizt of their student populations, while private day

schools showed a small decrease of about 6.5 percent. The major factors in

the increases in the riumber of students served in public separate day schools

reported by the case study facilities were general population increases in

the local communities, expansion of programs for students with handicaps

permitting them to be educated in regulae schools within their local

communities, and depopulation of large resideatial facilities.

Among separate residential facilities, the reverse pattern was found;

the public residential facilities responding to both surveys lost 12,749

students (a decline of 40 percent) while private residential facilities gained

2,181 students (an increase of 18 percent). In particular, State-operated

facilities have experienced a decline in their school-age populations as part

of the deinstitutionalization movement and associated with the increased

capacity of local public school programs to serve handicapped students. The

aging out of a cohort of sensory impaired, particularly hearing impaired,

students has also aff-,-ted public residential schools. As will be seen in the

next section, increases in the number of students served at private

residential facilities are particularly evident for students with emotional

disturbance.

B. CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS AMONG STUDENTS

The most important shifts in the nature of disabilities served in

separate facilities, based on data from the facilities reporting 'n both 1979

and 1988 (see Table 1.2); have been:

TAILE 1.2

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PRIMARY HANDICAP/I/NG CONDITIONAT SEPPAATE FACILITIES SURVEYED IN 1979 AND 1908

DAY SCHOOLS

Nild/amdsrate retardation 64.3 17.5 30.0 21.0 11.5 14.8Severe/profound retardation 18.2 4.9 8.4 58.6 8.0 25.5Seriously emotionally disturbed 2.6 16.4 12.7 4.2 22.3 16.1Learning disabled 1.5 17.6 13.3 0.1 12.0 7.9Speech iipaired 0.5 5.7 4.3 2.0 6.0 4.6Deaf and blind 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Orthopedically ivpaired 1.2 7.7 5.9 0.6 9.2 6.2Visually handicapped 0.5 1.2 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.8Deaf or hard of hearing 5.3 9.0 8.3 5.0 5.2 5.1Health impaired 0.2 1.2 1.0 1.6 3.7 3.0Nultihandicappee 4.2 14.5 11.7 4.4 16.1 12.1Other children

IAPII TO ladi44 44 44

RESIOENTIAL FACILITIES

Nild/moderate retardation 9.6 10.4 9.9 3.5 5.0 4.1Severe/profound retardation 37.3 2.5 27.8 21.3 4.8 14.3Seriously emotionally disturbed 9.7 33.8 16.3 26.4 47.8 35.5Learning Oisabled 0.1 7.2 2.0 0.9 6.4 3.2Speech iapaired 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5Deaf and blind 0 9 2.4 1.3 0.6 O. 0.4Orthopedically ieswired 1.0 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.§ 2.0Visually handicapped 8.0 2.5 6.5 9.6 2.4 6.6Dee or hard of hearing 25.0 23.0 24.4 27.1 13.3 21.2Health impaired 0.2 3.2 1.0 1.1 4.6 2.6Nultihandicapped 6.7 10.2 7.7 6.2 12.7 9.0Other children

ii4 iii TOK latiII

TAU rditi

°SOURCE: 1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities.

°SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this Study for the Oflice ofSpecial Education Programs.

NOTE: Because the facilities pm:resented in this table were a nonramiom subset of the total population

of facilities - -that is. they were selected because they had previously been surveyed in the1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities which did not inclwle the full universe offacilities in operation at that time- -the statistics presented hers are not based on weighted dataand cannot be generalized to all facilities that may, ve been in existence since 1979.

241111.199

o Decreases in the proportion of students in separate facilitieswho have.mild or moderate mental retardation, particularly inpublic separate day schools but in other types of separatefacilities as well

o Increases in the proportion of severely or profoundlymentallyretarded students in public separate day schools, paralleledby decreases in the proportion of such students in publicresidential facilities

o Increases in the proportion of students with emotionaldisturbance or behavior problems among the students at allseparate schools, but particularly at private day schools andboth public and private residential facilities

o Decreases in the proportion of students with hearingimpairments in private schools.

Based on these data, it appears thitt day schools, re'4 were primarily serving

students with mild or moderate mental retardatinn in 1979, were by 1988

primarily serving students with severe or profounu mental retardation. The

decreases in the numbers and proportions of students with mental retardation

in residential facilities are associated with the efforts to reduce the total

population, and particularly the schoo'-age population, in large public

residential institutions (White et al., 1988). At the same time, rapid

increases have been noted generally in the placement of children and youth in

psychiatric facilities (Darton, 1989), while demographic trends, in particular

the aging of hearing impaired students affected by the rubella epidemic, have

been associated with the decrcases in the number and proportion of hearing

impaired students.

III. 200

2,12,

C. CHANGES IN SEVERITY OF IMPAIRMENT AMONG STUDENTS AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

As expected from the changes in the types of handicapping conditions

served, separate facilities generally reported an increase in the overall

severity of impairment among their students compared to studeas in 1976,

based on the retrospective reports of administrators surveyed in 1988 (see

Table 1.3). While this increase in severity of impairment was reported by the

majority of all types of separate facilities, both public and private and day

and residential, public facilities and residential facilities were more likely

to report more severely involved students now than in the past. Overall, very

few facilities reported that their students were less severely impaired.

The experience of the case study facilities suggests that increases in

the incidence of secondary or multiple handicaps among students at separate

facilities may at least partially account for the increase in severity of

impairment. Specific changes in student characteristics mentioned by case

study facilities included:

o Inclusion of deaf-blind students at some State facilities forsensory impaired students, although other such facilitiesreported a decrease in these students, in one case because theState's program for deaf-blind students was now operated byan LEA

o Increases in the number of students with orthopedicimpairments in addition to their primary handicap, mentionedby several facilities, including State residential facilitiesfor sensory impaired students

o Decreases in the number of mildly and moderately retardedstudents, particularly those without other significantimpairlents

o Increases in mentally retarded students who were medicallyfragile and technology-dependent

III. 201

2,13

TAKE 1.3

RfPORTED CHANGE IN SEVERITY OF IMPAIRMIT OF STUDENT POPULATIONS OFSEPARATE SfIlOOLS OPERATING IN 1076 MID 1981

MY SCNOOLS

Viseverely handicappedAbout the sameLess sevorvly handicapped

ellililieverely handicappedAbout the same

Less severely hendic4Pped

All Div SchoolsWore severely handicappedAbout the sameLess severoly handicapped

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

ViseverelyhandicappedAbout the sameLess severely handimped

frallieverely handicappedAbout the sameLess severely handicapped

A11 Residenttgl Ictglitis

More severelyhandlcappedAbout the sameLess severely handicapped

2Z"

4r1

a/1

Mild/ModerateMental

SemmmeiPrefound

Modal Emotional"

60.7

19.0203

Multiple'1.

72.425.3

52.634.0*

66.03.1.2

78.5*

*

63.827.3

66.6211.6

4.8

54.0

30.415.6

66.6 69.2 65.6 64.6 61.427.8 27.2 22.5 30.4 29.45.5 3.6 11.9 9.2

*89.0 74.1 8246.6 19.3 a 13.2

'at

4.4 * 4.3

* 77.8 73.7 * 71.2" 13.9 24.5 " 23.9

8.3 1.8 * 4.9

:0

* 85.1 73.8 esa 75.2a 9.1 23.5 20.1* 5.7 2.7 47

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this studY.

KITES: Oats far this table vere reported by 954 of the 984 facilltios in the day schcal sample and 499of the 514 facilities ie the residential facility sample that reported they were open In 1976.

Indicates estimates for thick sample size is judged insufficient to posit reliable statisticalinfervnce. In addition, uherz the percentages twitted are zero or 100. It is not possible tocalculate sampling variances using standard methods.

111.202 4 .4

Other changes in the handicapping cnnditions among students mentioned by the

case study facilities Isere an increase in the number of students with autism,

in abused developmentally disabled children who had developed emotional

problems requiring residential treatment, in emotional disturbance among

visually impaired students, and in behavioral problems among students with

mental retardation.

D CHANGES IN OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

Nationally, separate facilities reported only small differences between

their 1979 and 1988 student populations in terms of age or racial and ethnic

distributions (see Table 1.4). However, reports by current administrators

indicate that separate day facilities are serving more students in the birth

through 5 year age range, particularly in public separate day schools (see

Table 1.5). Factors for similar changes among the case study facilities

included an increased emphasis on early intervention and the availability of

public funding for such programs. Among rEsidential facilities, there appears

to have been little change in the pre-school aged population, but a higher

proportion of students are age 18 or older, due in large part to the decline

in the proportion of residential populations of school-age (age 6 through 17).

This decline was particularly notable in facilities serving mentally retarded

persons, associated with the deinstitutionalization movement. Case study

facilities operating private residential programs serving students with

emotional disturbance noted that th4 were receiving more referrals in mid to

late adolescence when more severe behavioral or functional problems become

manifest in school and community settings.

III. 203

2 4 5

TABLE 1.4

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY GENDER AND RACE OR ETHNICITYAT SEPARATE FACILITIES SURVEYED IN 1979 AND 1988

TrZTTF21

lAY SCHOCLS°

Gender

Male 57.5 63.8 62.1 61.5Female 42:5 Titi 37:9 411

Race

White 88.8 77.1 80.5 90.6Black 6.7 15.0 12.6 6.2White or Black Hispanic 3.0 5.2 4.5 2.4Asian or Pacific Islander 1.2 2.3 2.0 0.1American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8

Ton Mar TOM Tff.11

RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES°

Gender

Male 59.5 62.9 60.8 60.7Female 40.5 37.1 39.2

Tan BO IOUN

Race

White 73.4 82.5 77.0 71.3Black 19.2 13.4 16.9 19.8white or Black Hispanic 4.4 3.3 4.0 5.1Asian or Pacific Islander 1.7 0.6 1.3 2.1American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.3 0.2 0.9 1.8ili57 WI TNT DIU

65.6 64.534:6 35:5

71.3 76.917.9 14.57.0 5.73.4 2.544 0 5

iilet

68.6 63.731:4 36:3

77.3 73.614.5 17.85.4 5.21.7 1.91.1 1.5MT IBM

°SOURCE: 1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities.

°SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this study for the Office of SpecialEducation Programs.

°Data on gender were provided by 154 facilities in both 1979 and 1988; data on race were providedby 146 facilities in both 1979 and 1988.

4Data were provided by 254 facilities in both 1979 and 1988.

NOTE: Because the facilities represented in this table were a nonrandom subset of the total populationof facilities- -that is, they were selected because they had previously been surveyed in the1978-79 OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities which did not include the full universe offacilities in operation at that time- -the statistics presented here are not based on weighted dataand cannot be generalized to all facilities that may have been in existence since 1979.

111.204 f)A

TABLE 1.5

AVERAGE LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

Mild/ModerateMental

Retardation

Severe/ProfoundMental

RetardationEmotional

DisturbanceHearing

ImpairmentMultipleHandicap Total

DAY SCHOOLS.

Nthl,

0-5 years 8.3 * a * 4.76-17 years -10.7 * * * .5.318-21 years 2.4 * * a 0.6

Private0-5 years -0.6 3.5 -1.0 * * 356-17 years -8.3 0.3 2.5 a * -5.118-21 years 8.9 3.8 -1.5 .

* 1.6

All Day Schools0-5 years 3.1 7.1 -0.1 * 7.6 4.26-17 years -7.7 -8.0 2.3 a -8.4 -5.218-21 years 4.6 0.9 -2.2 * 0.4 1.0

RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES°

Public

0-5 years * -4.3 0.4 a -2.26-17 years * -14.2 -2.3 * -11.818-21 years . 18.5 1.9 .

14.0

Private0-5 years * * -0.6 a 0.96-17 years * 11 1.2 * -7.818-21 years * a -0.6 a 6.9

All Residential Facilities0-5 years * 0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -2.5 0.06-17 years * -24.4 0.8 -1.3 -9.1 -9.018-21 years * 24.8 -0.3 0.5 11.6 9.0

SOURCE: :Jrvey of Separate Facilitiel, condicted in 1988 as part of this study.

Data for this table were reported by facilities with 38,942 of the 107,036 students (unweighted) infacilities that reported they wert open in 1976.

b Data for this :able were reported by facilities with 12,839 of the 50,066 students (unweighted) infacilities that reported they were open in 1976.

Indicates estimates for which sample size is judged insufficient to permit reliable statisticalinference. In addition, where the percentages reported are zero or 100, it is not possible tocalculate sampling variances using standard methods.

247111.205

E. CHANGES IN FACILITY MISSION

In response to change: in their student populations, some separate

facilities have made changes in their general approach or mission. The case

study f...cilities provfde several examples of such changes. For example, some

residential facilities have added partial day treatment programs for

emotionally disturbed students, while other types of facilities have added

adult programs. The expansion of services in these areas reflects a change

in emphasis in the field of speciai education generally toward community-based

rather than residential programs and toward expanded training for adult

disabled persons.

In addition, in some residential facilities, particularly State-operated

facilities, special education services are no longer provided by facility

staff but are provided either on- or off-campus by the local public school

district. Across the nation, abcut 23 percent of State-operated residential

programs for severely or profounaly mentally retarded persons and 10 percent

of State-operated programs for emotionally disturbed students do not include

the costs of educational services in their operating budgets. Overall, among

all State-operated residential programs about 15 percent did not include the

cost of providing educational services to school-age residents in their

operating budgets. In the vast majority of cases the local school district

or an intermediate education unit provides special education to students

residing in those institutions.

Separate facilities have also built upon their expertise by providing

information, technical assistance, and training to other agencies and

providers in their States. This has been particularly the case for State

III. 206

residential schools for sensory impaired students, but was noted by private

schools as well. Specific examples of the types of outreach services providei

by the case study facilities included:

o Assisting in the evaluation of students with severeimpairments

o Conducting workshops and seminars for LEA staff both on thecampus of the facility as well as in local districts

o Cooperating with the SEA, professional associations, or othergroups to hold State-wide conferences on state-of-the-artinstructional approaches and other topics of interest toeducators of severely impaired students and students withspecific disabilities

o Maintaining up-to-late expertise on technological innovationsin computers and other instructional devices, and providingassistance in si!lecting, implementing, and/or modifying suchtechnology to staff in other programs for sensory impairedstudents

o Providing support and training to parents of sensory impairedchildren, particularly through early intervention programs andparent-infant workshops

F. SUMMARY

The numbers and characteristics of students served in separate facilities

since the latter half of the 1970's, just after passage of P.L. 94-142, have

changed substantially. Public separate day facilities have increased the

number of students they serve, while the number of students in public

residential institutions has decreased. Among private facilities, day schools

have sefln a modest decrease in number of students while residential schools

have increased in size. Students with mild or moderate mental retardation

are a smaller proportion of the students in separate facilities, particularly

in public facilities, while students with emotional disturbance form a larger

III. 207

24 '3

compoilent of the p^7ulation of separate schools. Separate day schools have

expanded their services through parent-infant, early intervention, and pre-

school programs to handicapped children from birth through age five. In both

day and residential separate facilities, the proportion of older students, age

18 through 21, has increased because of later referrals and longer lengths of

stay associated with more severe impairments as well as decreases in the

proportion of traditional school-age (6 through 17) students served.

Probably the most important factor reported by separate facilities to be

associated with these changes in the student populations served at separate

facilities was change in the orientation and programming of other providers

in the special education system. Mbst often mentioned were changes in policy

and capacity among local educational agencies, resulting in more students

being served in the public schools who would formerly have been among the less

severely impaired students at the separate facilities. This in itself has

resulted in an increase in the average severity among current students at

those facilities. The deinstitutionalization movement, which has led to a

decline in the number of residents at State-operated facilities and a

concomitant increase in students for at least some separate facilities

operating smaller, usually day, programs, was also frequently mentioned as a

factor in changes in the noimber and characteristics of students at the case

study facilities.

As students with less severe impairments who may have formerly been

placed in separate facilities are mor often being served in local public

schools, separate facilities have faced an increase in the proportion of

students with multiple handicaps of many kinds, students with greater needs

111.208

for functional and/or vocational rather than academic instruction, and

students from families where dysfunction and/or socioeconomic circumstances

may have aggravated the limitations in their children's development. For

some, this has resulted in a conscious effort on the part of the facility to

expand services to more severely impaired students, to students with

significant secondary handicaps, and to students with handicaps not formerly

served by the facility. Certain facilities have also developed their capacity

to share the expertise and experience of their staffs and the instructional

materials and equipment they have available with local educators, with

parents, and with other service providers.

III. 209

2,51

II. FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY PROGRAMS AND METHODS OF INSTRUCTION

Over the past several decades Federal legislation has both initiated and

reflected changes in general social values affecting programs for persons with

disabilities. In American society, providing access to education is a public

responsibility, affording each individual the opportunity to develop his or

her potential and contribute to the society's well-being. P.L. 94-142

established the fundameeal right ot all school-aged children with handicaps

to a "free appropriate public education" guided by written educational plans

developed specifically for each individual child (Section 602). Section 626

of P.L. 98-199 (thc! 1983 Amendments to EHA) recognized that much more needed

to be done for all handicapped students in this regard and expanded provisions

for individualized instruction, instruction in practical daily

living/socialization skills, vocational education, and transition programming.

his :hapter focuses on the use of individualiaed education and

transition plans and programs for students at separate facilities, the

development or adoption of new instructional approaches for special education

programs, and program evaluation activities. This chapter also describes the

factors reported to be influential in facility changes in these areas of

facility practice.

A. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION AND TRANSITION PLANS

One of the central requirements of P.L. 94-142 was the development and

pe-iodic re-evaluation of individualized education plans (IEPs) for each

handicapped student. This requirement received considerable attention in the

first years after the passage of EHA through SEA monitoring and technical

2 5

assistance activities. It is not surprising then to find that, nationally,

virtually all (99 percent) separate facilities now routinely monitor student

progress against the IEP and conduct annual or more frequent re-evaluation or

revisions of the MO. The national data from the Survey of Separate

Facilities also indicate that separate facilities experienced considerable

change after 1976 in the use of individualized approaches to educational

programming (see Table II.1). Increases in the provision of individuaily

tailored educational programs and the monitoring of individual educational

progress were reported by morr. han 85 percent of separate facilities, whether

day or residential, public or rivate.

Unlike the IEP which was required beginning in 1976 for all studehLs with

handicaps under P.L. 94-142, specific plans for individual students to

facilitate their move from one educational setting to another or from the

educational system to the adult social service system and community life are

of more recent origin. Transition planning has become increasingly important

as more and more handicapped students are likely to have a series of

placements before leaving school and entering the community. National

estimates, from the Survey of Separate Facilities, for the average length of

stay in a particular sepP ate facility are 6.4 years for students in day

programs and 4.2 years for students in residential facilities (see

Table 11.2). Across handicapping conditions, the average length of stay in

facilities for students with emotional disturbance is much lower than the

average for day or residential programs for students who are mentally retarded

or have sensory impairments.

III. 212

TABLE 11.1

. PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING WITH STATEMENTSREGARDNG CHANGES IN USE OF INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLANS

As compared vilh191§,the facility provides more -facility monitors iaivldual

individualized orooram olonnina educational doeloceent more closely

DAY SCHOOLS

Public 87.7 92.0

Private 89.6 85.6

Total 88.8 89.3

RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

Public 97.3 96.0

Private 92.5 91.2

Total 94.1 93.0

SOURCE: Svvey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this study.

Sem Tables 11.5 and 11.6 in Part Three of Volume II for mare detailed breakdowns.

2!S.';

111.213

TABLE 11.2

AVERAGE LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT AT SEPA&ATE FACILITIES

LearningDisabilitv

Mild/ModerateMental

Retardation

Severe/ProfoundMental


DisturbanceMultipleMenem Total

Average Length ofEnrollment in DayFacilities (Years) 3.5 $.6 9.9 2.7 6.7 6.4

Average Length ofStay of Enrollmentin Residential

Facilities (Years)

Day Students 49 1.6 4.1

Residential Students a 6.4 1.8 a 4.2

SOORCE: Survey of Separate Facilities. conducted In 1988 as part of this study.

NOTES: Average length of enrollment was asked with regard to students leaving the facility during theprevious three years.

Indicates estimates for which sample size is judged insufficient to permit reliable statisticalinference. In addition, where the percentages reported are zero or 100, it is not possible tocalculate sampling variances uSiflg standard methods.

111.214

Nationally, among students age 17 or younger leaving separate facilities,

over 80 percent enter another educational setting, with less than one-quarter

of exiting students continuing their education in another separate setting

!see Table 11.3). Naturally, among students age 18 or older who leave

separate facilities, fewer continue in an educational program. About two-

thirds of older students leaving separate facilities enter into some type of

vocational preparation program (college or vocational training), into

sheltered or supervised work (including day activity centers), or competitive

work (see Table 11.4). Some molerate proportion either have no new placement

or program planned for them, or none that is known to the staff at the

separate facility, as they leave.

Parents, educators, advocates, and handicapped persons themselves are

especially concerned with the lack or paucity of training, residential, and

other support services for handicapped adults and with the difficulties in

arranging and maintaining these services where they exist. Nationally, while

large proportions of separate facilities report an increase since 1976 in

their ability to find appropriate placements for students leaving their

programs, a substantial number (about 30 percent) continue to encounter

serious problems securing residential, educational, and vocational

arrangements for students (see Table 11.5).

III. 215

2'S()

TABLE 11.3

NEW DAYTIME PLACEMENTS OF 1987 SEPARATE SCHOOL RELEASESAGE 0-17 YEARS

(Percent of Releases Age 0-17 Years)

i PlDayhool

ResidentialI s

Regular Class (with or withoutresource room)

19.0 22.9

Special Class in Regular School 42)5 37.5

Special Day School16.3 7.7

Residential School5.1 15.7

College/University Degree Program 0.5 0.6

Nome-Based Instruction 1.5 1.4

Competitive Work 1.9 1.3

Supported/Subsidized Work 0.2 0.1

Sheltered Employment 1.7 0.3

Day Activity Center0.6 0.4

Vocational Training 1.4 2.9

No Placement or Program3.9 2.4

Unknown5.6 6.9

TOTAL RELEASES AGE 0-17 YEARS 100.0 100.0

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of thisstudy.

See Tables IV.10 and IV.11 in Part T40 of Volume II for more detailedbreakdowns.

111.216

TABLE 11.4

NEW DAYTIME PLACEMENTS OF 1987 SEPARATE SCHOOL RELEASESAGE 18-21 YEARS

(Percent of Releases Age 18-21 Years)

New Daytime Placement

Regular Class (with or withoutresource room)

Special Class in Regular School

Special Day School

Residential School

College/University Degree Program

Home-Based Instruction

Competitive Work

Supported/Subsidized Work

Sheltered Employment

Day Activity Center

Vocational Training

No Placement or Program

Unknown

TOTAL RELEASES AGE 18-21 YEARS

Day ResidentialSchools_ Facilities

2.7

8.5

4.0

2.2

3.1

(1.9

12.2

5.5

24.3

12.7

7.2

10.8

6.0

100.0

3.5

5.6

7.2

5.0

12.1

0,3

10.9

5.7

9.7

12.9

15.0

3.4

8.7

100.0

SOURCE: Survey of Separatestudy.

See Tables IV.12 and IV.13breakdowns.

Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this

in Part Two of Volume II for more detailed

25;3111.217

TABLE 11.5

PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES REPORTING CHANGES AND VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS INSECURING APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS FOR EXITING STUDENTS

Increase since 1976 in abilityto secure appropriate placements

Current very serious problems insecuring apprqpriate residentialplacements

Current very serious problem insecuring appropriate educationalor vocational placements

Day ResidentialPublic Private Total Public__private Total

70.6 71.8 71.0 72.2 66.8 68.6

MA NA NA 36.5 34.4 35.1

30.4 26.5 29.1 29.2 31.5 30.8

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this study.

NA = Not Applicablets3

- n;cr

1. Transition Planning

Attempts tor anticipate and overcome problems in transition have led to

the use of specific plans for student transitions, particularly to assist in

the move from the eduCational system into the adult world.' These plans are

more and more likely to be required as part of or adjunct to IEPs, and can

include goals for student behaviors and skill acquisition that would signal

readiness for a move to a less restricted setting, plans for gradual

introduction into new settings, and efforts to coordinate the support system

in new settings.

While there are no national data on the use of transition plans for

students at separate facilities, the case study facilities indicated that such

formal written transition plans are fairly widely used; two-thirds of the case

study facilities noted that they currently develop such a plan, either as a

separate document or as part of the IEP, as students prepare to leave the

facility. However, among separate facilities serving students with emotion')

disturbance only about half had formal plans, while nearly all of the case

study facilities for mentally retarded or sensory impaired students had such

plans. The difference in tne use of transition plans is correlated with the

next placement of most students leaving each type of facility; in most casns

emotionally disturbed students leaving separate facilities return to the

public school, while most leaving facilities for emotionally disturbed or

'The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983 containedexpanded provisions for transition programs for students with handicaps. TheOffice of Special Education Programs was authorized to make grants toeducational agencies and institutions to strengthci and coordinate education,training, and related services for handicapped youth to assist in thetransition to post-secondary education, vocational training, competitiveemployment, continuing education, or adult services.

III. 219

261

mentally r,Aarded students do so as they agP out of the educational system and

enter the adult world. More formalized planning is often required to

negotiate the more complex set of issues that may be facing such students,

including finding alternative residential arrangements and appropriate

employment and training opportunities. Case study facilities for students

with mental retardation or sensory impairments noted the need to begin

planning for community-based services well before the student was expected to

leave the facility. Besides the development of written transition plans,

other planning activities mentioned by the case study facilities included

working with parents to set goals for new placements and having routinized

evaluations of student readiness for transition. A few facilities set

formal transition teams for planning and evaluation or designated e staff

member to coordinate transition planning and programming.

The facilities reporting that during the period since 1975 formal

facility procedures for transition planning had been instituted most often

served either emotionally disturbed students or students with mental

retardation. Half of the -acilities now using formal transition plans noted

that SEA requirements were a major reason for instituting these plans.

Attention paid in SEA monitoring to transition plans and the influence of SEA

technical assistance, training, or information on transition planning,

including manuals, guidelines, and forms for developing and documenting

indiv-dual transition plans were cited as specific SEA procedures affecting

change. One facility reported that special grant funds had been made

available throrgh the SEA-supported recourse/materials center to develop

transition planning materials and processes, and other facilities gave credit

to funding provided through other State sources.

II!. 220

The facilities reporting that they had become increasingly involved in

planning well irradvance of the student's leaving OA facility for residential

placements, employmmnt or training, and other support services were also

responding to SEA influence. In the two cases, the SEA either had a

requirement for such pre-planning activities or strongly encouraged them. In

one facility, staff members took the initiative in the development of the

plans based on SEA encour,gement, but did not receive any direct support from

the SEA. In the other, an SEA-sponsored conference had provided needed

information and ideas.

Several facilities more involved in formal transition planning attributed

this change to the increased needs of the more severely impaired students and

also noted that their staff took the initiative in responding to those needs.

The primary reason given by facilities that now conduct informal planning for

transition was also staff response to more complex problems in planning

post-facility placements presented by students with more severe impairments.

In addition, some facilities for mentally retarded students made note of the

greater effort involved in transition planning and locating po.. acility

placements due to the increasAd severity of the handicaps among the students,

although their specific approach to transition planning had not changed.

The case study facilities with more student and/or parent involvement in

'tion planning reported that facility staff recognized the increasing

o such efforts as the nature of students' problems were now more severe

ago pervasive, although one also noted a State requirement for parent

participation in exit planning. Another example of the combined irfluence of

SEA procedures and student population factoes was the facility with an

III. 221

2R 3

on-campus diagnostic classroom developed in the period since 1975. This

approach was developed in response to changing student needs and aided by the

availability of resources based on the higher funding formula for the

multi-handicapped students now enrolled in its program.

2. Ti_w_itkiLEtogrAn'ai

The line between planning and programming for transition is not distinct,

and among the case study facilities, where this issue was explored in depth,

it was reported that the most effective approach is a combination of both.

The procedures used by one private residential facility for emotionally

disturbed students provide an examnle of a transition approach incorporating

both planning and programming aimed at enabling students to successfully

return to a community-based ..7...hool environment. Teachers at this facility

recommended students twice a year for transitioning. A team meeting was then

convened in which school administrators and a support group planned a program

to support mainstreaming. Usually the prog-am included placement in the

transition classroom at the separate facility for some period and then in

classes at the local public school. There was a staff member assigned the

responsibility of working with the local public school as well as a tutor to

help with academics. In adon, students anticipating transfer from the

facility participated in a support group. The group met a minimum of four

times to discuss the students' concerns and fears about returning to the

public school environment and therapists helped students develop appropriate

coping strategies. Once the student left the facility and returned to his or

her home and school, an "aftercare" worker from the facility continued to

monitor the student's progress and was available to provide support to the

III. 222

student, the parents, and the school as needed over a period of several

months.

Overall, case study facilities serving students with emotional

disturbance focused specific transition training and/or practice in the skills

and behaviors required in the anticipated next educational placement. In some

cases, this training took place within a special transition classroom in which

students were required to meet the kinds of expectations for behavior and

academic performance they would encounter in a public schwl setting. In

other facilities, students were placed in a public school environment, under

supervision of the facility staff, as part of the assessment for release crom

the facility and training for return to their home communities and schools.

Another model for such transition experiences used by other facilities was to

place students in local public schools for one period initially and then add

periods as students were successful in meeting their behavioral and other

objectives, until thay were fully transilioned into the public school program.

Nationally, certain transition practices are nearly universal among

separate facilities, including transfer of student records to the new school

and involvement of parents in planning for the student's transfer (see

Table 11.5). Joint planning with the student's local school dis*rict is also

very common. The requirement of P.L. 94-142 for parental involvement in

decisions regarding educational placements and for local district oversight

III. 223

2'C5

TABLE 11.6

, PROVISION OF SERVICES BY SEPARATE SCHOOLSTO EXITING STUDENTS

(Percent of Schools)

Services to Exiting StudentsDay Resldentia

Schools Facilities

Arranging transfer of recordsto new school F .9 98.4

Visitinj new placement within exiting student 75.4 76.7

Training in skills/behavior

specifi,:ally required innew placement 76.9 74.9

Involving parents in planningand preparation for transferto new placement

95.3 95.8

Follow-up to monitor successof new placement

Joint planning with the LEAfor transition

Providing back-up or additionalservices after new placement

Providing guidance and vocationalcounseling to exiting students

Providing job placement services

Other

70.3 72.6

83.8 85.1

57.1 68.3

51.8

33.6

50.1

56.2

32.9

53.8


See Tables 111.15 and 111.16 in Part Two of Volume II for more detailedbreakdowns.

111.224

of the IEP has undoubtedly been a factor in the widespread use of such

transition activ.ities which are focused on movement to another educational

setting.

Other transition Practices are related to the transition of students from

education to adult life. These include vocational counseling and assistance

in job placement, which are routinely provided by fewer separate facilities

(about half and one-third, respectively). However, ...bout three-quarters of

separate facilities nationally repnrt providing training to students on skills

and behaviors required once they leave the facility.

A number of transition practices are applicable both to students entering

another educational placement and those entering the community as adults.

Substantial majorities (between 70 and 80 percent) of the separate facilities

sty /eyed nationally reported visiting the new setting with the student or

following up on the success of the new placement. Providing backup or

additional services after transfer to the student, family, or.new placement

staff was less common, although more so among residential facilities where

coordination with a new residential placement may also be necessary.

According to the case study facilities, the types of transition support

reported by large numberc of separate facilities nationally were of long

standing. Only a few of the case study facilities mentioned specific changes

in transition practices since 1975, other than in the areas of vocational and

life skills training which will be discussed in the next section. Only

efforts to provide more systematic followup of students after they leave the

separate facility were cited as a change in facility practice. The factors

meationed with regard to this change were more complex student needs and staff

initiKives to respond to those needs.

111.225

2

3. litury.m

The need fqr transition planning and programming he,: increased as the

population of separate facilities has Clanged. Some types of transition

activities are routinely provided by most separate facilities, especially in

the transfer of students from one educational setting to another, Other types

of transition support are less frequently aveiiable, particularly follow-up

services, vocational guidance and job placement.

An increase in transition planning, particularly in the us* of formal,

written transition plans for entry into the adult world as students leave the

educaConal system, was the most frequent change mentioned by the case study

facilities. The factors associated with this change were most often reported

to be SEA requirements for such plans and the increased severity of impairment

among students which made ..4rough and early planning even more important.

State divisions of special education also provided support to these planning

efforts through the devclopment of guidelines and forms and through technical

assistance and training.

There were only a few case study facilities reporting specific changes

in the area of programs for transition other than in life skill and vocational

training (which is discussed, separately).

B. CHANGES IN LIFE SKILLS AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

As previously noted, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of

1983 (P.L. 98-199) recognized and addressed the importance of social and

vocational skills for handicapped students by expanding provisions for

programs to address these.needs. In addition, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational

Education Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-524) mandated that students with handicaps have

III. 226

access to public vocational education programs. Th- 1-quarters of the twenty-

four case study lacilities reported having either life skills or vocational

education programs or both currently in operation.

Most of the case ttudy facilities currently having either life skills or

vocational education programs reported that there had been a major emphasis

placed on developing these programs since 1975, as the goal for their students

had more often become community-based rather than institutional placements as

adults. Changes in the student population, particularly in terms of the

severity of impairment, had also increased the emphasis placed on pre-

vocational and job readiness training.

A small number of case study facilities, most for students with mental

retardation, had developed a more functional or task-oriented approach to

instruction, particularly in vocational and life skills training, in the years

since 1975. SEA-provided technical assistance and program materials, as well

2S input from national accrAditation organizations, were both cited as

important factors in this change in orientation. An even smaller number had

added training in computer skills, primarily in developing communication

skills, again aided by SEA technical assistance.

1. Life Skills Education

Life skills programs at the case study facilities were generally

conducted on campus and focused on functional and community living :sills,

ranging from basic personal care to how to manage an apartment and handle a

budget. Because educational programs for mentally retarded persons have

traditionally focused on life skills training, it is not surprising that life

skills programs were much more common among case study facilities serving

III. 227

04 I)

mentally retarded students (in which 70 percent of the facilities had such

programs) than 'in facilities for students with sensory impairments (25

percent) or emotional disturbances (20 percent). However, separate facilities

for students with senSory and emotimal impairments have over tlme come to

serve more multihandicapped persons and persons with mental retardation in

addition to other impairments. As they have done so, they have developed a

greater emphasis on life skills training.

Among the twenty-four case study facilities, three on-campus independent

living programs were begun in the mid-1980's or later. Typicllly, these

programs provided a small group of selected students the opportunity to live

in a small residential environment, resembling as closely as possible a

com ,lity-based setting. The purpose of these programs was to provide

students with the experience of living in an environment in which they were

responsible for many more aspects of their own daily lives than they were in

the dormitories. Students in these independent living peograms were generally

expected to share such chores as cleaning, preparing food, doing laundry, and

in some cases preparing a budget and planning expenditures.

In one independent living program at a State-operated facility for

mentally retarded students, students lived six to eight weeks in a mobile home

on a part of the campus separate from tne dormitories. Two roommates shared

the mobile home, with no child (residential) care staff on the premises and

no housekeeping services. Students shopped, cookk cleaned, and planned

their own schedules, putting into practice skills learned in the classroom.

During this period students were evaluated on their skills, and students

successful ir the mobile home moved into the second floor of a converted

228

dormitory, which had a communfl kitchen and bathroom and individual bedrooms.

The students in this dormitory had the same responsibilities as in the mobile

home. This independent living program was designed to help students better

anticipate what it will be like to live outside the facility. Respondents at

the facility also reported that this program was responsible for a better

understariing among the staff of what it is that students need to learn and

experience in order to function successfully in the community. The success

of a number of students in the program also has been responsible for staff

having higher expectations fcr the students in other aspects of the facility's

programs. These indirect results of the independent living programs were also

reported at other facilities.

These independent living programs were developed in response to student

neeis, staff initiatives, and in one case, the dPinstitutionalization policies

of the State department of mental retardation. One facility gave credit to

tle technical assistance and information available through the SEA division

of special education, particearly through State-wide conferences, in helping

set up and improve their independent living program.

2. Vocational Education

The vocational education programs at the case stu4 facilities focused

on career awareness, the acquisition of specifically marketable skills or good

work habits, and actual vocational experience. Vocational education programs

were prevalent across the case study facilities regardless of the handicapping

condition served or the facility operator. The instructional approaches

included classroom-based training, on-campus vocational training stations, or

supervised off-campus work experienc'. either sheltered or competitive

III. 229

271

settings. The facilities most likely to have extensive on-campus vocatlonal

training equipment, in such areas as printing, carpentry, equipment repair,

and data processing, were the State-operated schools for the sensory impaired.

Several other facilities had student-operated school stores or businesses.

Students often worked in facility cafeterias or in other on-campus work-study

programs.

The single most frequently change in educational programming mentioned

by the case study facilities was an increased emphasis on vocational

preparation and training, with haif of the facilities reporting an increase

in vocational education in the classroom setting or in vocational experience

programs, especially in off-campus settings.

The availability of grants other specifically targeted funding for

program development, particularly ERA-8 and Federal vocational education

funds, was considered important in providing opportunities for program

developwent and experimentation in vocational education, particularly by

State-operated programs. One facility also noted that ability to use the

higher reimbursement formula for a special education vocational program,

rather than the lower allocation under general vocational education, allowed

it to expand its vocational program. SEA-provided assistance and training

also aided in the development of programs in vocational education. The

facilities noting the impact of SEA program development and dissemination

activities overlapped partially with those mentioning technical assistance and

training.

III. 210

C. INCREASED USE OF TREATMENT AND BEHAVIORAL GOALS IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING

Half of the. case study facilities reported using some kind of behavior

management techniques as a part of their programming, in either educational

or residential/therapeutic settings. Behavior management techniques were used

predominantly by facilities serving students with emotional disturbances

(80 percent of these fac..iities reported using such techniques), but were also

reported by facilities serving mentally retarded students and students with

sensory impairments.

The approaches used generally went beyond simple behavior modification

using immediate rewards for demonstration of skills and/or appropriate

behavior. The facilities using more complex behavior management techniques

generally involved the students in the monitoring of their own performance.

For example, students in one residential facility for emotionally disturbed

children carried a chart with them on which they recorded points for either

refraining from disruptive or unacceptable behaviors or engaging in desired

behaviors. The behaviors were chosen by the staff to help each individual

child overcome his or her own particular behavioral problem:. Students were

given rewards of various types, such as special privileges and public

recognition of their achievements, and were gradually weaned from the charts

and point system, with the goal to develop sensitivity to social approval in

their own behavior control.

In one-third of the facilities using behavior management techniques,

these approaches were an integral part of both the educational and residential

programming, creating a fully integrated approach to the child's development

and/or treatment. For example, in thebehavior management system described

231

2 7 3

above, educational and residential staff communicated regularly to ensure that

each was made aware of an individual student's behavior problems in the other

setting, and at the time of the site visit the facility was moving toward

more formally integrating the behavioral goals of the IEP with those of

the individual treatment or habilitation plans.

The use of integrated educational/therapeutic approaches was not solely

Hefted to behavior management techniques. For example, among the case study

facilities, a facility for mentally retarded students and another for students

with sensory impairments also reported coordinating various therapeutic and

educational components of students' progr- s in order to ensure that a common

set of goals were addressed. The transfer of life skills training from the

classroom to the dormitory was an example of this type of coordination.

About one-fifth of the case study facilities reported increased use of

t!havior management or modification techniques since 1975. All but one of the

facilities reporting these types of changes were residential programs for

emotionally disturbed students. Other case study facilities for emotionally

disturbed students noted that they had increased the amount of therapy or

treatment services they provide to their students, as the emotional problems

among their students had become more severe.

More integrated educational and treatment or residential programming were

mentioned by one-quarter of the facilities, equally distributed among the

three handicapping conditions of ment0 retardation, sensory impairments, and

emotional disturbance. Facilities for students with mental retardation were

predominant among those mentioning increased use of related services staff and

special assistive devices in the educational setting. The principal factor

III. 232

in the increased use of therapeutic or related services in educational7--

programmi g was change in the characteristics of the student population,

particularly in the severity of impairments and the prevalence of mult.:pie

handicapping condi-jods.

O. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Providing an educational program that meets handicapped students' needs

and one that assists individuals in reaching their potential are the goals of

special education. Program evaluation activities are one way in which

facilities can determine their degree of success as they work toward those

goals. This section describes the types of program evaluation activities

undertaken by separate facilities and factors that have influeaczd changes in

program evaluation activities.

I. Current Program Eval ation Activities

Based on national estimates from the Survey of Separate Facilities,

virtually all separate facilities are certified by one or more governmental

agencie:, and in most cases. (90 percent of day facilities and about three-

quarters of residential facilities) one of those agercies is tt State

education agency (see Table 11.7). These patterns hold regardless of the

primary disability served by the facility. About one-quarter of separate day

facilities and half of sep3rate residential ftcilities also have accreditation

by non-governmental agencies such as professional associations with private

facilities of both types slightly more likely to have accreditation than

public facilities (see Taole 11.8). Both governmental and non-governmental

111.233

275

TABLE 11.7

PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIES WITHCERTIFICATION AND/OR LICENSE FROM ONE OR MORE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

ert ert e yOne or More the StateGovernmental EducationA

DAY SCHOOLS

Public 99.2 92.5

Private 93.2 85.8

Total 96.8 89.8


Public 100.0 77.8

Private 98.6 74.7

Total 99.1 75.8


76

TABLE 11.8

PERCENT OF SEPARATE FACILITIESWITH ACCREDITATION BY NOI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

DAY SCHOOLS

"lair ifTMERServe. FaciltMild/Moderate Severe ProfoundMental Mental Emotional Multiple

Retardation Retardation Disturbance Handicaps Total

Public 27.8 22.9 15.8 6.2 17.9

Private 53.6 * 42.4 25.1 36.1

Total 35.7 20.6 26.2 12.5 25.2

RESIDENTIALFACILITIES

Public 34.3 65.5 47.8

Private 61.0 52.3

Total 76.5 25.5 61.1 29.6 50.7


Dashes indicate calls with cne or fewer responding facilities.

Indicates estimates fcr vhich sample size is judged insufficient to permitreliable statistical inference. In addition, where the percentages reported arezero or 100, it is not pnssible to calculate sampling variances using standardmethods.

277

111.235

accrediting organizations generally require some form of program evaluation

which is often the core of facility activities in this area. On average,

separate facilities nationally reported undertaking program evaluation

activities (such as review of facility goals, evaluation of the congruence

between the facility program and individual student needs, and reports to

monitoring or certifying organizations) about two times per ye,As, with little

difference between public and private facilities (see Table 11.9).

The case study facilities reported using a number Or specific mechanisms

to evaluate programs, including:

o Use of outside reviewers

o Self-evaluation activities among facility administration andstaff, often including needs assessment surveys

o !LP reviews or. individual studen progress assessments

o Comparisons of student test scores over time

o Consumer/parent surveys

Accreditation by a professional association usually involves review of a broad

range of program elements and includes both preparation of self-evaluation

reports by the facility and site visits.by a team of peers from simiiar

facilities. The external accreditation reviews were generally on a five-year

cycle, but facilities often adopted some or all of the accreditation

procedules for thet owe, more frequent, evaluation. One State school for

sensory impdired students had modified the procedures used by its accrediting

organization for a biannual self-evaluation process using both staff 3nd

parent surveys. These in-house evaluation activities have allowed the

III. 236

TAPE 11.9

FREQUENCY OF PROGRAM REVIEWS 8Y SEPARATE FACILITIES

(Average Number of Times Per Year)

Review of facilityaoals and objectives

Evaluation of degree

facility's programs arein line with ihdividuala'

oroorams and objectives

Reports on facilityoperations to monitoringor certifying oroanizations

BAY SCNCOLS

Public 2.5 2.1 2.0

Private 1.8 2.1 1.9

Total 2.3 2.1 2.0

RESIDENTIALFACILITIES

Public 2.5 ?.1 2.8

Private 2.2 2.4 2.4

Total 2.3 2.6 2.5

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this stody.

See Table V.9 in Part Two of Volume II for more detailed breakdowns.

2 79111.237

facility to focus on internal issues such as averaga itudent test scores as

well as to respdnd to requests for information from external agencies such as

the SEA and the legislature. The same facility has also used the results of

these evaluation actiiities to develop its own long-range plan. More informal

evaluation activities, most commonly consisting of surveys of staff, clients,

or parents, were mentioned by case study facilities. Some facilities also

reported using the required periodic IEP or individual student progress

assessments as a means or program evaluation, in addition io compliance

monitoring.

2. Chanaes in Program Evaluation

Almost three-quarters of the case study facilities noted some change in

program evaluation since 1975. Just less than one-third, facilities (all but

one publicly operated), reported that they had initiated program evaluation

since 1975. In most cases, Gis involved some form of self-evaluati and

assessment activities, but a few facilities set up computerized student data

bases or hired an outside consultant to determine changes needed in the

facility's programs.

State requirements for program evaluations and examination of evaluation

activities during monitoring were mentioned by about half of the case study

facilities initiating program activities as important factors in their

decision, while an equal number undertook program eiali ition activities on

their own initiative. In one case stuO faci'iiy, an evaluation specifically

of its vocational education programs was stpported by Perkins Act funds and

tectical assistance from an SEA division other than special eduction. About

half of the facilities initiating program evaluations also gave credit to the

III. 238

division of special education or to the SEA-funded resource/materials center

for helping the' develop an evaluation program; the help they received

included bulletins and other publications containing klas and approaches for

program evaluation, manuals on program evaluation, and technical assistance

fnms a program specialist in evaluation.

About one-quarter of the public case study facilities mentioned that

program evaluation had increased in intensity or quality. Factors mentioned

by these facilities were State requirements and monitoring regarding

evaluation activities, the initiative of the facility director and/or staff,

and involvement in external accreditation, In addition, one facility gave

credit to funds and technical assistance provided by the SEA but through a

division other than special education. This local district program had

recently become involved, at :he initiative of the principal, in a school

improvement project sponsored by the SEA's general research and evaluation

division, with general education fundiny cnd supported by technical assistance

provided by the division responsible for all public schools. This project was

part of a pilot program for both general and special education facilities and

involved more sophisticated and intensive needs assessment and evaluation than

the facility had used in the past. Progress toward facility-specific goals

(to reduce the number of student referrals to the principal's office for

discipline and to improve staff and parent assessment 6f the effectiveness of

student disciplinary practices) was evaluated both in terms of process (the

number of workshops and inservice training sessions offered to staff on

discipline issues and the development of written procedures for positive

reinforcement of student behavior and for appropriate teacher disciplinary

III. 239

281

actions) and outimmes (counts of incidence of student referral for

Jisciplinary action t, the principal and results of staff and parent surveys).

In addition to the case study facilities initiating program evaluation

activities since 1975; several changed the focus of their program evaluation

efforts. Monitoring was a factor in a number of these cases, for example,

changing the focus of program evaluation to standards of the SEA, as a result

of now being directly monitored by the SEA, and shifting evaluation efforts

to more closely follow the procedures and criteria used in SEA monitoring.

However, changing evaluation focus was also reported to be affected by SEA

technical assistance and dissemination activities, including provision of a

self-study guide, availability of program specialists to provide technical

assistance and training in evaluation, and conferences at which facility staff

have the opportunity to gather information about the other programs to provide

a framework for their own self-evaluation.

Several of the facilities tnat reported either increasea quality or a

change in focus of their program .ualuation activities also noted that

evaluation activities had increased in frequency. The factors behind this

change were diverse, including a more severely impaired student population

requiring more frequent assessment of program effectiveness, recommendations

for more frequent evaluations from the operating district, and a more frequent

schedule to coincide with SEA monitoring.

3. Summary

Program evaluation activities Ire regularly performed at separate

facilities, on the average of twice a year according to national estimates.

However, there have been relatively few changes since 1975, based on reports

III. 240

282

by the case study facilities. The changes that were reported.were primarily

affected by procedures adopted by the State education agency's division of

special education--particularly technical assistance, dissemindZion,

standards, and monitoring. Other frequently mentioned factors were the role

of the facility's own leadership and of other divisions within the SEA or

other State agencies.

Several facilities noted that SEA monitoring procedures provided a

general model or basis for the facility's own evaluation activities or focused

the facility's evaluation of its own program on specific, measurable goals.

Some facilities modelled their own evaluations after the monitoring process

or structured the focus of their evaluations on the topics covered in

monitoring, for example, ensuring that complete data were available in student

records on the placement decision and the IEP development process. In these

evaluation activities, facilities did not focus on student outcomes or

indicators of program effectiveness. In general, these types of evaluations

looked at procedural compliance rather than program quality.

In several facilities, the principal, particularly if he or she was

relatively new in that post, was reported as initiating the involvement of the

facility in program evaluation and/or changing the focus, format, or frequency

of evaluation activities. In addition, external accreditation agencies often

provided the framework and focus of program evaluation efforts.

III. 241

23

III. FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY STAFFING

The bulk oi the funds expended on .pecial education services are

allocated to personnef costs', and the quality and effectiveness of education

provided students in any educational setting is, in large part, a function of

the staff providing services. This chapter presents a description of three

critical dimensions of educational staffing in separate day and residential

facilities for handicapped students. It provides a picture of how these

dimensions have changed since the passage of P.L. 94-142 and discusses the

factors associated with these changes.

The three dimensions of facility programs described in this chapter

are staffing levels and types, staff development, and staff evaluation. The

qualifications of educational staf,, their numbers and types, the ratio of

staff to students, and existence of staff shortages are indicators of the

availability of staff crucial to the provision ot effective special education

programs. Staff development activities provide new skills, professional

growth, and updated qualifications fcr personnel to assure their continued

effectiveness in providing services. Finally, staff evaluation provides a

means of assessing staff effectiveness in the provision of services and of

giving feedback to staff to increase effectiveness.

'According to a study, teacher salaries accounted fo, 71 percentof instrtctional proy expenditures for special education, whiie aides andall othkr practitioners accounted for another 27 percent (Moore, et al.,1988).

III. 243

284

All three dimensions of facility staffing have changed significantly in

separate facilities for handicapped students since the passage of Pl. 94-142,

although the extent to Oich they have changed varies due to numerous factors,

includino changing student populations and the operator of the facility. This

chapter describes, for each dimension of staffing, current practices at

separate facilities across the nation. Each section then continues with a

detailed discussion of changes in each dimension and of the factors which have

influenced the changes as reported by the case study facilities.

A. NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FACILITY STAFF

The characteris. s of staff providing education are generally assumed

to be closely related to the quality of education provided in schools. When

well-educated and certified or licensed staff are available in sufficient

numbers, student needs are most likely to be met.

1. Current Staffing Patterns

T,ble 111.1 provides national data from the Survey of Stparate Facilities

on the average hours per week per student of various types of staff providing

instructional or related services to students.2

'Most students at separate facilities (fr m 70 to 80 percent in dayfacilities and from 55 to 65 percent in residen.ial facilities, according tonational estimates from the Survey of Separate Facilities; see Chapter V ofVolume II) are in classroom settings of 6 or more students. Therefore, thisfigure should not be interpreted as the amount of supervised instruction andrelated services received by a student during a week.

III. 244

TAU 111.1

Sifff NOMS Pa MEM PEI MISR ME IF SUIFF

t1;4-eram betractlemal Staff

Spacial facaisa leplor Matta-111

Imartifted1Werssiiiiitastractlesel

%fort sodMaga Services *Baal

la 5010113...L. _1

Palk WO 4.1 0.4 1.1 5.1 0.3 2.9 atPrimate 9.1 3.6 0.7 0.6 3.6 0.6 4.9

Total 9.6 3.9 0.5 0.3 4.5 0.4 3.7 IR

NESIIIENTIN. FACILITIES

Palk 11.6 6.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 2.1 11.1 14.3

Private 10.6 3.6 1.4 0.0 3.7 0.9 9.3 22.7

Total 11.0 4.7 1.1 0.6 3.5 1.1

SONItit Sway of Soweto facilities. tomacts4 1616 as part a this stay.

Sae Tables 9.3 and 9.4 is Part Toe of alms II for sere detailed Meadows.

IN list Pallable

0-1 6 Ialmas psychsleasts al Wheeler aft. psychiatrists, camoelers, social later* physical therapists, scamatiamel therapists, speech ad lame therapists, trunnion sad casraityr-o MIN stills Webers, watiael specialt nardial academics teachers, physical eicatia al rarestisa teachsrs, mid art teschers, librarian al wee *patellas, physicians,r-o dentists, medical ad anal mines. Welt as. lom vista specialists. ability trainers, Maria spat' .ists. eadieleasts, al other apart reletad services staff.

VI

286 287

Total instructional staff of day schools averaged 9.6 hours per week per

student or aboOt one full-time equivalent teacher per 4.25 students.

Certified special education teachers at residential facilities averaged

3.9 hours per week pei student (about 1 per 10 students). Paraprofessionals

averaged 4.5 hours per week per student (about 1 per 9 stulents) with the rest

of the instructional staff made up of regular education teachers, tutors,

assistants, instructional consultants, and others involved in classroom

instruction. Total instructional staff of residential schools averaged

11.0 hours per week per student or about one full-time equivalent teacher per

3.6 students. This was somewhat higher than the average of 9.6 hours per week

per student in the day schools. Certified special education teachers at

residential facilities averaged 4.7 hours pr week per student (about 1 per

8.5 students): paraprofessionals averaged 3.5 hours per student pep week, and

teachers not certified in special education averaged 1.7 hours per student per

week, with other instructional personnel, assistants and instructional

consultants accounting for the remainder of the 11 total hours.

A wide range of support d related services staff were available at

separate day and residential racilities, including psychologists, social

workers, speech, occupational, and physical therapists as well as teachers

providing specialized instruction in remedial academics, music, art, and

physical education. On average, staff provided an additional 3.7 hours of

support and related services per student per week at separate day facilities,

and an additional 9.8 hours per student per week at residential facilities.

Teacher Certification. As can be seen in Table 111.2, most classroom

teachers at separate facilities have certification in special education,

III. 246

although this is more true among day schools than reiidential facilities

(83 percent and-73 percent, respectively). In all settings, fewer than

fifteen percent of classroom teacher time is provided by noncertified

teachers. The bulk Of classroom teacher time not accounted for by staff

certified in special education is provided by certified teachers who do not

have special educatiol. credentials. Private facilities use both uncertified

teachers and teachers with certification in an area other than special

education considerably more extensively than public facilities. This pattern

is particularly evident among residential facilities.

Aide-to-Teacher Ratio. The ratio of teacher to other classroom staff

time provides some indication of the support available to teachers in the

educational process. Table 111.3 presents national statistics on these ratios

from the Survey of Separate Facilities. In separate day facilities, there is

approximately one hour of classroom aide and other classroom instructional

staff time for each hour of classroom teacher time. In separate residential

facilities classroom teachers have fewer hours of classroom staff support, but

this appears to be balanced by additional support and related services staff

time provided at residential facilities. There are no differenCes of any

magnitude between public and private facilities in aide-to-teacher ratios.

Staff Turnover and Staff Shortaaes. Turnover of instructional staff was

reported to be higher in private day schools than in public day schools.

Private schools reported a 22 percent average annual turnover of instructional

staff as compared with 10 percent ib. private facilities (see Table 111.4).

III. 247

2R9

TABLE 111.2

PERCENT OF TOTAL TEACIER NOMBY CERTIFICATION STATUS

Potent a.ClassroonTeschor NoursWith Special Education

Certification

Pimento?ClassroonTeschsr Nauru

lholar MuttonOrtification

Percent orTeachsr burs

WithoutCertification

DAY SCHOOLS

PUblic 89.1 8.7 2.2

Private 73.5 14.3 12.2

Total 83.0 10.6 6.4


Public 92.5 6.0 1.5

Private 63.3 23.3 13.3

Total 73.4 17.2 9.4

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities. conducted in 1988 as part of this study.

III.248400

TABLE 111.3

RATIO OF TEACHER TINE TO TINESFENT BY AIDES ANDOTHER CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Ratio of Teacher to Ratio of Teacher to. Ratio of Teacher Aide& Other Classroom Support sad Related Services

To Aide Time Staff Time tiff Time

DAY SCHOOLS

Public 0.9 0.85 1.6

Private 1.4 1.2 1.0

Total 1.0 0.9 1.3 ,. ,1%

RESIUENTIAL FACILITIES

Public 2.2 1.3 0.6

Private 1.6 1.3 0.6

Total i.8 1.4 0.7

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this stint/.

291111.249

-:.;

TABLE 111.4

AVERAGE ANNUAL TURNOVER OF STAFF AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

DAY SCHOOLS

Public Facilities

Instructional andClassroom Staff

Private Facilities


9.8

21.6

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

EALLEAciati.21

Direct Care 24.2Residential Staff

Instructional and 16.3Classroom Staff

Private Facilities





NOTE: Turnover was defined as file number of staff positions of a specifictype (instructional/classroom or direct care) for,which new employeeswere hired to replace departing employees during the previous yeardivided by the facility's total nuiber of positions of that specifictype.

292

111.250

Correspondingly, more private than public day facilities reported that

instructional staff turnover was a very serious problem (about 16 percent and

8.5 percent, respectively). (See Table 111.5.) Related to the higher rate

of staff turnover pioblems in private day schools was the report by

administrators at 62 percent of these facilities that "competing with the pay

scales and fringe benefits of alternative employers" was a very serious

problem, as compared with 30 percent of public day school administrators.

There was no substantial difference in turnover of instructional staff

in private residential facilities (19 percent) compared to public residential

facilities (16 percent) (see Table 111.4). A greater difference was noted in

the turnover of personnel providing care and supervision to students outside

the instructional program. This was reflected in the much higher reports of

problems with residential staff turnover reported by private compared to

public residential facilities (61 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively).

(See Table 111.5.) Public residential facilities reported an annual turnover

of their direct care staff members of about 24 percent as compared with 35

percent in the private residential facilities. Many (51 percent) of private

residential facility administrators, like their counterparts in separate day

facilities, reported that competing with the pay scales and fringe benefits

of alternative employers was a very serious problem.

Recruitment of related services staff is a problem faced by many separate

facilities. Among the case study facilities, shortages of occupational and

physical therapists were particularly frequently mentioned (by almost half of

the case study sites), while a quarter of the facilities needed speech

therapists or teachers of the speech impaired. Among the other specific staff

111.251

293

TABLE 111.5

PERCEPTION OF PERSONNEL PROOLEPB AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

(Percent of Schools Reporting Problem as Very Serious).

iarrStrir-nsProblem Areas

PUOLIC

Recruiting professional staffwith the necessary certifica-tion in special educationor related services

Recruiting professional staffwith the necessary expertisefor your particular program

Turnover of residentialand classroom staff

Turnover of instructionaland classroom staff

Competing with the peyscales and fringe :Anefitsof alternative employers

Obtaining/coordinating

services or qualifiedrelated service, providers

PRIVATE

Recruiting professional staffwith the necessary certifica-tion in special education orrola,. services

Recruiting professional staffwith the necessary expertisefor your particular props.

Turnover of residentialcare staff, if am/

Turnover of instructionaland classroom staff

Competing with the payscales and fringe benefitsof alternative employers

Obtaining/coordinating

services of qualifiedrelated services providers

FalltiesReside:K-WFgc1 Mies

31.2 34.8

38.9 43.6

NA 29.1

8.5 9.8

30.3 34.0

32.2 19.7

43.6 29.7

44.6 33.2

NA 41.2

15.6 12.3

61.9 51.2

19.9 14.7

SOURCE: Sumnpyof Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as,pert of thi: study.

See Tables V.7 and V.8 in Part Two of Volum II for more detailed breakdowns.

NA. Not Applicable

111.252 294

shortages, case study respondents reported nurses, trained bus drivers, and.

personnel such as vocational teachers and psychologists trained to work with

students having particular handicapping conditions. Only a few case study

facilities noted that they had a shortage of teachers, but substitute teachers

were difficult for these facilities to find, given that they had to be

certified in one or more area: to teach the population(s) of the school.

2. Changes in Staffing Patterns

P.1. 94-142 was designed to improve the availability and quality of staff

providing special education and related services to students with handicaps

through two major mechanisms: (1) the Comprehensive System of Personnel

Development (CSPD) process of evaluating and planning for both preserv4ce and

inservice staff training needs and (2) through the general supervision

responsibility of State education agencies over all publicly funded special

education programs which in many States has meant the direct application of

teacher certification standards in all settings including separate facilities.

These provisions have resulted in changes in staffing, as documented below.

Duality of Staff. There have been substantial changes in the quality of

instructional staff since 1976, noted by the current administrators at

separate facilities. Table 111.6 indicates that nationally large majorities

(over 80 percent) of administrators at separate facilities of all types (day

and residential, public and private) reported that instructional staff have

more appropriate training than in the past. The case study facilities

confirmed this trend and also the increased prevalence of certification and/or

licensure among staff. In approximately half of case study facilities,

III. 253

295

TAW 111.6

PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEING MIN STATEMENT REGARDING01.91GES IN STAFF QUALITY

Primary Disability Served by theAs compared with 1976, instructionalstaff hired by the facility has morejggEgoriate training.

Mental


DisturbanceAll

DAY PROGRRIS

Public 92.3 a

211122.11---

86.7

Private

RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

89.6 84.1 83.3

s/J

Public 00.5 82.0 83.0

Private 88.3 86.2 86.7

SOURCE: Sloveyof Separate Facilities, conducted in 1986 so part of this study.

Indicates estimates for which sample size is judged insufficient to permit re'iable statisticalinference, In addition, whero the percentages reported are zero or 100, it is not possible tocalculate umpling variances using standard methods.

296111.254

teachers of the facility were more often certified than in the past, and

related services staff were more often certified and/or licensed, depending

on relevant State regulations. This change occurred in all typ of

facilities, and uniformly, a factor influencing this change was reported to

be State certification standards.

However, factors other than State certification standards also were

important in the improved quality of staff at separate facilities. The

availability of enhanced State technical assistance and training was noted by

one third of the case study facilities as a reason for the change. More than

half of the facilities indicating that staff were better qualified attributed

the higher quality of staff to improved preservice training and a number

indicated that a higher quality of staff resulted from the continuing

education requirements of the State.

Type of Staff Employed. While detailed national data on changes in the

specific types of staff positions found in separate facilities are not

available, twenty-two of the twenty-four case study facilities indicated that

the type of educational staff they employ had changed in the years since

the passage of P.L. 94-142. One quarter noted hiring teachers for

multihandicapped and/or more severely handicapped students. These differences

in staff composition were largely attributed to changing student populations

and the resulting programmatic changes.

One quarter of the facilities also hat; more vocational teachers and

transition staff (e.g., those involved in living skills, prevncational

training, and community-based programs) than in the past, again reflecting

changes in student needs. The facilities eeploying more aides ware largely

III. 255

297

those serving mentally retarded students, and several facilities for students

with emotional disturbances had more crisis intervention staff than in the

past.

In addition to changes in the instructional staff, more than half of the

case study facilities (all but one of them, local public or private

facilities) were employing more related services personnel than in the past.

In particular, more staff such as nurses, other medical staff, occupational

therapists, physical therapists, speech and language therapists, social

workers, and psychologists were on staff or under contract than had been true

in earlier years.

The number of administrative staff increased in about one-third of the

case study facilities due to the changing student population, the creation of

new programs or the opening of new schools as part of the facility (itself

often the result of changing numbers or types of students served by the

facility), and changes in the leadership at the facility. In two State-

operated facilities for sensory impaired students, this addition of

administrative staff was associlted with more outreach prograi o serve

students outside the facility and to assist local school districts ih serving

their own students with sensory handicaps.

Ease of Recruiting and Retainino Staff. Slightly more than half of the

case study facilities found it harder to hire staff than in the past. While

this was particularly true for occupational and physical therapists,

recruitment was also a problem for nurses, speech and language therapists,

teachers of the emotionally disturbed, and teachers jointly certified for two

or more handicapping conditions or for a handicapping condition and another

area of education such as vocational education.

111.256

One-quarter of the case study facilities, operated either by State or

private agenciei, believed that staff were harder to find !Acme school

districts could offer higher salaries. At some facilities, staff maintained

that unionization in other types of facilities serving similar populations had

led to higher salaries making it more difficult to find qualified staff.

State requirements for teachers to hold joint certification such as those

mentioned above, requirements that related services persunnel be certified to

work with school-age children or in school settings, requirements that

substitute teachers have certification for a particular handicapping

condition, and requirements that bus drivers have special training have meant

that some case study facilities experienced more difficulties in finding the

staff they needed. Further, the increased need for particular types of staff

to serve the increasingly severely impaired populations of these facilities

undoubtedly influenced the perception that it was harder to find various types

of staff than in the past.

Almost a quarter of the case study facilities, serving either emotionally

disturbed or mentally retarded students, found it harder than in the past to

retain staff; most of these were programs operated by local school districts

or intelmediate education units. The principal reason for problems in

retention was reported to be teacher burnout associated with serving a more

severely impaired student population than in the past.

Staff to Student Ratios. Based on comparison of data from the 1978-79

OCR Survey of Special Purpose Facilities End the 1988 Survey of Separate

Facilities for facilities responding in both years, little change wes noted

in the ratio of instructional staff to students (see Table 111.7). In 1979

III. 257

299

TABLE 111.7

CHANGES FROM 1979 TO 1988 IN THE RATIO OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFFTO STUDENTS AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

Type of Facility

1979 r

PUBLICResidential .32Day .32

PRIVATEResidential .40Day

.33

IffltPUBLIC

Residential .36Day .33


.31

Net Cho=

PUBLICResidential .04Day .01


.02

'SOURCE: 1978-79 OCR Survay of Special Purpose Facilities.

'SOURCE: 1988 OSEP Survey of Separate Facilities.

300111.258

the public residential schools reported .32 instructional staff members per

student, as compared with a slightly higher .36 in 1988. The private

residential schools showed a decrease of the same magnitude (.04), dropping

slightly from .4 to A6 instructional staff members per student. (A change

of .04 represents one instructional staff FTE per 25 students.) Even smaller

changes were noted among day schools with the public day sc:hoals increasing

from .32 to .33 instructional staff members per stuaent and private day

schools decreasing from .33 to .31 instructional staff members per student.

3. 5......uninarv

Staffing patterns in separate day and rt,idential facilities are closely

tied to the student population of the facilities. Changes in the types of

personnel employed at facilities reflect the needs of different types of

students, particularly more severely involved and/or multihandicapped

students. On the other hard, while the particular training and skills needed

by staff have changed in response to changing student needs, overall staff to

student ratios have changed very little.

While the needs of the student population was the key factor noted in

determining the number and type of staff in separate facilities, State

education agency standards for staff certification have provided the

parameters for staffing decisions in separate facilities. The result has been

a higher rate of certification among staff at separate facilities as well as

better prepared and trained staff. However, it is to be expected that in the

firture State certification standards will have less impact on staff quality

due to the longevity of the requirements, preservice training directed to the

requirements, and facility acceptance of the requirements.

111.259

301

Staff recruitment and turnover continue to be problems faced by

substantial numbers of separate facilities, affected by the changing needs of

students, more stringent SEA certification standards, and competition with

alternative employers'including local district programs and non-educational

settings such as hospitals,

B. STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Staff development is one tool which can be used by educational facilities

of all types to improve the quality of services provided to students, by

providing new skills, professional growth, aml updated qualifications to

personnel. Staff development activities may take several forms including

in-service training provided on-site, financial support and/or leave time to

allow staff to attend metings and conferences, tuition assistance for

coursework, and dissemination of information. All of these activities are

employed by separate facilities as means of improving educational services.

1. acrent Staff Development

Table 111.8 presents national estimates of the average hours of inservice

training for staff at separate facilities per year. These data, reported by

administrators on the Survey of Sept7ate Facilities, indicate that generally

between twenty and thirty hours of inservice training are provided to

instructional, related services, and residential care staff. The average

amount of staff development training does not differ substantially across

types of facilities. However, among day facilities it appears that more

inservice opportunities are provided at private rather than public schools.

III. 260

3;12

TABLE 111.8

AVERAGE ANNUAL HOURS OF IN-SERVICE TRAININGPER STAFF MEMBER AT SEPARATE FACILITIES

DAY SCHOOLS

public Facilities


Support and Related 19.8Services Staff


Support and RelatedServices Staff

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

Public Facilities

Direct CareResidential Staff


Support and RelatedServices Staff

frjak_facilitin

30.4

23.9

29.5

32.3

20.4



Support and Related 24.0Services Staff



TI/.261en

For example, public day schools reported an annual average of 24 hours of

inservice training for each full-time equivalent of their instructional

personnel and 20 for support and related services personnel, while private day

schools reported an annual average of 30 hours for each full-time equivalent

of their instructional personnel and 24 for support and related services

personnel. Among the residential schools, instructional staff of both public

and private schools were reported to average 32 hours of inservice training

per year, but private facilities were reported to provide somewhat more

inservice training than public facilities to support and related service

personnel (24 hours and 20 hours, respectively) and to direct care residential

staff (36 and 30 hours, respectively). The higher averages for residential

compared to day facilities may reflect the fact that residential programs more

often operate throughout the year.

More details on staff development activities were obtained from the case

study facilities. The staffs at almost two-thirds of the case study

facilities had input as to the content of the staff development activities

offered in-house through needs assessments and staff development committees.

In more than half of the case study facilities, plans were developed for staff

training programs a year or more in advance, with a few facilities created

individual development plans for staff members. Almost half of the case study

facilities noted that they provided staff development activities for non-

professional staff, such as residential care staff and aides.

2. Chanoes in Staff Development

While national data on changes in staff development activities are not

available, staff development at the case study facilities were reported to

III. 262

have changed in several ways in the years following P.L. 94-142. Changes in

topics, opportunities for staff development, the relationship of staff

development to needs, the quality of staff development, and staff

participation were most prominent among the changes reported by the case study

facilities.

TODics. Almost uniformly at the case study facilities, the topics of

staff inservice presentations and other forms of staff development had changed

over the years; for example, one-third of the facilities noted that topics

presented had moved from a compliance orientation to topics more directly

related to student needs such as behavior management, drugs, vocational

education, and technology. Other topics not previously addressed were mastery

based curricula, transitioning, child abuse, secondary handicaps, early

intervention-services, autism, suicide, and functional skills development.

The principal reason for these changes in staff development was perceived

to be the changing or new student populations of the facilities; almost 80

percent of the facilities reported this as a reason for the different topics

being presented in inservice training and other forms of staff development.

Just over one-third of the case study facilities held that the topics had

changed because of the State education agency technical assistance, training,

program development, and dissemination in staff development.

Resource/materials centers for special education, funded or operated by the

SEA, also were reported to provide useful workshops and seminars for facility

staff on new topics.

One-third of the case study facilities reported that changing staff

development topics were the result of changing State standards related to

III. 263

305

certificatim and continuing education. Several case study facilities held

that SEA monitoi.ing of facility compliance with personnel standards had

resulted in different topics being addressed, sometimes due to recommendations

of the monitoring teaci. One quarter of the facilities noted that the change

in staff development topics was a result of new facility practices and/or new

leadership in the facility itself.

Woortunities. Another dimension on which staff development had changed

in the years since 1975 was in the opportunities available for staff

development. In three-fourths of cast study facilities visited, facility

staff reported that opportunities were greater than in the past.

Slightly more than half of the facilities reported that the source of

these greater opportunities was the State education agency, either from the

agency itself or through resource/materials centers operated by the SEA; thus,

SEA technical assistance and training were noted as highly influential in

expanding access to staff development activities and resources. Increases in

opportunities were also created by additional funding from the State,

frequently through the general education reform movement or with EHA monies,

and several facilities noted that the monitoring of State staff requirements

had led to the creation of more opportunities for staff development by the

facility.

One quarter of the case study facilities provided more opportunities

themselves, at the initiative of facility leadership, while about 20 percent

noted more oppo.unities provided by other apPmies and organizations,

including local education agencies, associatioas, other State agencies, and

universities. Finally, some facilities noted that negotiated union contracts

required more staff development than in the past.

III. 264

3 r, G

Relationshio to Needs. The case study facilities generally reported

that, since 1975, staff development had become more systematically related to

needs assessments and stueents' needs. The facilities noting this change

temied to tle those operated by LEAs or IEUs; two-thirds of these facilities,

but no private facilities, reported this change. To, more systematic

relationship between needs assessments and students' needs, and staff

development, generally occurred in the f3rm of staff committees, staff

surveys, and through the establishment of master staff development plans. A

few facilities noted a tendency to prov4le more individualized staff

development than in the past. For example, at one case study facility the

principal developed individual plans for teachers annually and met regularly

with staff to assess progress toward these planred goals.

Almost all of the case study facilities reporting increased coordination

of needs and staff development activities maintained that State requirements

related to certification, continuing education, and mandated needs assessments

for staff development had led to this change. A few also gave credit to staff

initiative in the greater integration of needs assessments, students' needs,

and staff dIvelopment.

Oualitv. Improvements in the quality of staff development activities

were noted by one-third of the case study facilities. One facility director,

for example, believed staff development had changed dramatically due to an

increasing knowledge base; the content, the director maintained, was more

thought provoking than in the past.

Several case study facilities indicated that better staff development

resulted from the various program development and dissemination related to

staff development and technical assistance and train4mg provided by the State

III. 265

3n7

education agency in the post-P.L. 94-142 era; this information and training

came to the facilities principally through State-funded resource/materials

centers. The availability of more State monies to spend on staff development

than in the past and initiative on the part of facility staff were factors

credited by several facility administrators in providing better quality staff

development activities.

For almost one-third of the facilities, staff development activities were

more formalized than they had been in the past. For example, one privately

operated facility reported that over the years in-service activities had

become more systematic, with a regular schedule of in-service events held on

a monthly basis and regular planning for staff development. For the most

part, more formalized systems resulted from changing State education agency

requirements concerning the provision of staff development.

Participation. Staff at one quarter of the case study facilities were

participating in staff development activities more often than in the pas"

the leadership of the directors and/or principals at half of these facilities

was reported to have been 'strumental in effecting this change. The recent

availability of college cc rses through resource/materials centers operated

by the SEA was also reported by some case study facilities to have led to

greater staff participation since staff were using these courses to meet State

continuing education or certification requirements.

Finally, several facilities were providing staff development to non-

professional staff to a greater extent than they had in the past; these

staff members included residential staff and aides. For example, a peer

paraprofessional program was being used in a facility to train its

instructional aides. Mbst often these types of programs were developed at

the initiative of the facility staff and leadership.

111.266

3r orl

3. lawn

Separate ficilities provide opportunities for inservice training for

their staffs, both in-house as well as through other avenues such as State-

funded and/or organized seminars and workshops, including those offered

through resource/materials centers. The equivalent of approximately three to

four days per year per full-time staff member are generally provided. Based

on reports of the case study facilities, opportunities for staff development

and participation in staff development have increased since the passage of

P.L. 94-142. All facilities now present different topics in their in-service

presentations; topics related to compliance with Federal laws and regulations

are now less frequently presented. Moreover, the quality of staff development

activities has improved and is more closeiy tied to student and staff needs.

Changes in the student population of separate facilities and in the

technical assistance and training opportunities provided by SEA have been

the major forces in changes in staff development activities since P.L. 94-142

was enacted. In addition, SEA staff certification and/or continuing education

standards as well as other requirements related to staff ddvelopment plans and

activities were also mentionmd by many facilities as important factors

associated with changes in that area.

C. STAFF EVALUATION

Staff evaluation provides a means for school administrators to assess

the quality of the education being provided to students. When feedback is

provided to staff and it is linked to corrective action and/or practice, the

provision of services to students is likely to improve.

III. 267

309

1. Cgrrent Staff Evaluation

Staff evaluition in separate facilities for the handicapped is a function

most often reserved for the facility administration, although there is

frequently a State requirement that evaluatims must occur and some States

prescribe systems. On average, separate facilities conduct performance

reviews for their staff at least once per year (see Table 111.9), with day

facilities averay:ng over twice a year. The case study facilities provided

further details on staff evaluation activitiet About half of these

facilities used staff evaluation systems created by their States or used State

forms with some modification or addition, while one-third used forms they had

developed intemally. All privately operated case study facilities used their

own staff evaluation systems.a

More than either staffing patterns or staff development, the current

staff evaluation practices at separate facilities were in large part

determined by the administration of the facility. Staff evaluation was

largely a locally controlled function despite the fact that State requirements

for evaluations existed. All publicly-operated case study fecilities noted

that State-level requirements existed for staff evaluations; often these

derived from State personnel departments or administrative departments and

were based on State employee law or regulations. These general requirements

and/or standards were noted as a major influence on staff evaluation

procedures. However, whers State-wide systems required for all State

III. 268

TABLE 111.9

FREQUENCY OF STAFF EYALUATIONi BY SEPARATE FACILITIES

(Average Number of Times Per Ytal,

DAY SCHOOLS

Public 2.5

Priate 2.8

Total 2.4


Public 1.8

Private 1.5

Total 1.6


See Table V.9 ia Part Two of Volume II for more detaileo breakdowns.

31.1

111.269

employees were used, the system of evaluation frequently was viewed by the

administrators at the case study facilities as a weak tool for the evaluation

of education staffs because of their general nature.

2. Chanaes in StaCt Evaluation

According to the case study facilities, staff evaluation practices

remained more stable in the years following the passage of P.L. 94-142 than

did staffing patterns and staff development activities. Almost half of the

case study facilities reported that no change had occurr,.4 in staff evaluation

procedures since 1975; however, changes were more frequently mentioned by

local public special education facilities. Nevertheless, a limited number of

types of changes in staff evaluation were noted by the respondents in other

types of facilities. These included changes in the staff evaluation systems

used, the frequency of evaluation, and the impact of staff evaluations.

Systems. In one-third of the case study facilities, a new evaluation

system had been put in place since 1975. Some of these facilities as well as

others noted that evaluation systems had become more detailed by outlining and

defining evaluation criteria and measuring more specif!c skills; also specific

criteria had been defined for evaluating different staff positions.

The reasons given for these changes were varied; half of the case study

facilities reporting changes in their staff evaluation systems noted that

their State's general education reform movement and related State development

and dissemination of staff evaluation systems and/or materials had influenced

these changes. For example, a separate school operated by a local school

district was participating in a recently funded school improvement project

funded by the State education agency; one part of the program involved more

III. 270

3

sophisticated and in depth needs assessments for the school, with specially

designed staff development activities followed by an evaluation of staff's

implementation of needed changes. One quarter of the case study facilities

maintained that the reason for the changes in staff evaluation was the

initiative of the local facility director and the facility staff in an effort

to improve the educational services delivered to students. Several facilities

noted that local unions through the negotiation process had played an

important role in creating more specific staff evaluation systems.

Freauencv. Staff evaluations were more frequent in several case study

facilities than they had been in the past. For moat of these facilities, more

frequent evaluations were affected by new State requirements, influenced by

general education reform movement in the State. One facility was evaluating

staff more frequently at the direaion of a new principal.

Impact. Several case study facilities also noted that staff evaluation

was now better linked to corrective practice and training than in the past;

for some the lilk was to the inservice training provided, while for others

the link was to corrective practice. For the former, new leadership had

caused the change while for the latter, both leadership and union influence

were important.

3. Summary

Separate $acilities generally conduct annual or more frequent performance

reviews for their staff. Staff evalu,tion was not an area in which the case

study facilities reported experiencing treat change in the post-P.L. 94-142

era, in the perception of facility leadership; almost half cf the twenty-four

facilities reported that no change had occurred. Staff evaluation has been

III. 271

313

and remains largely a local function, and a function that is not necessarily

c lsely tied tb the improvement of programs in separate facilities,

particularly if it is part of a mandated State employee evaluation system not

specifically tied to educational practice.

Changes that occurred in the systems of evaluation at some separate

facilities in the period since 1975 were most oft,in as a result of the

initiative of the facility leadership or the requirements established by the

general education reform movement. Changes were more likely to be reported

by local school districts, where the changes applied to all schools in the

district including separate facilities for handicapped students.

D. SUMMARY

Separate facilities reported changes in staffing patterns--particularly

in the type and quality of staff, although problems remain in staff

recruitment and retention--and in staff development activities--opportunities,

content, and participation--since the implementation of P.L. 94-142. On the

other hand, fewer facilities had experienced changes in their staff evaluation

activities, and those that did primarily linked the changes with internal

initiatives, although State requirements associated with educational reform

also had an impact in some local public school systems.

The predominant factor associated with changes in both staffing and staff

development was change in the student population, spet 'ically in the severity

of the impairments experienced by students and needs associated with those

impairments. However, more than half of the case study facilities also

indicated that State staff certification standards and other requirements

related to staff qualifications were important in their decisions regarding

III. 272

0

the number and kinds of staff to employ and the provision of in-service

training for staff development. In addition, SEA-funded and/or provided

ttchnical assistance and training opportunities were cited by many of the case

study facilities as maing a contribution to changes in staff development

activities available to their staff, as were initiatives from the facilities'

own staff and administration.

Overall, therefore, the major avenues by which the State educational

agency has had a direct impact on staffing at separate fau;lities have been

through the implementation of standards related to staff certification and

continuing education and through the support of seminars, workshops, and other

opportunities for staff to expand their skills and knowledge. These

procedures are, however, not specifically applicable to separate facilities

and staff in all special education programs presumably are affected. In

addition, the largest effects of staff certification standards were generally

felt during the period when P.L. 94-142 was first implemented and all special

education programs, particularly those in Steite-operated facilities, came

under the supervision of the SEA. Moreover, while certification standards of

necessity affect staffing decisions and separate facilities make use of staff

development opportunities provided by the SEA, the predominant factor

affecting staffing is, inevitably, the needs of the student population. Since

the facility leadership has the most intimate knowledge of these needs, it is

often their initiative that has led to changes in development activities for

their staffs.

III. 273

315

IV. FACTnPS AFFECTING STUDENT INTEGRATIONn..D PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

In addition to providing instruction and related services to handicapped

students, programs in separate facilities for handicapped students also plan

for other aspects of students' educational experiences. This chapter looks

at two of these aspects: (1) opportunities given to students for interaction

with nonhandicapped peers and others in the community outside the separate

facility, and (2) opportunities to involve and support parents. ieyond their

mandated participation in planning and review of their children's educational

placement and services.

A. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERACTION WITH NONHANDICAPPED PEERS

One of the defining characteristics of separate facilities is that

students do not generally interact with their nonhandicapped peers during the

course of the school day and, if the facility is residential, during nonschool

hours as well. However, in line with the expectation that the goal for

individuals with handicaps is the development of potential for growth and

independence, most separate facilities provide opportunities for interaction,

commensurate with the student's needs and abilities as facility staff perceive

them.' There is, however, considerable variability in the nature and degree

'Several case study facilities serving students with emotional disturbance,generally in residential treatment settings, indicated that there was no or veryminimal interaction by their students with nonhmdicapped persons outside of thefacility. Staff at these facilities noted the severity of the behavior problemsexhibited by their scudents and the importance of a consistent therapeutic milieuin helping students overcome these problems as factors causing them to limit theamount and kinds of interaction with persons outside the facility. In addition,some case study facilities for emotionally disturbed students did not stressinteraction with nonhandicapped peers because of the short average length of stayand the intensity of the therapeutic work that must be done outside of the schoolday during that period.

III. 275

3 1 6

of student interaction with winhandicapped peers and with the general

community among septiate facilities.

1. Off-Camous Educational or Develoomental Proorams

National estimates (based on the Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted

in 1988 as part of this study) of the proportion of students age 6 through 17

enrolled in separate facilities who attend off-campus educational programs is

about 10 percent of those in day facilities and about 19 percent in

residential facilities (see Table IV.1). Comparable proportions for preschool

students from birth through age 5 are lower (about 9 percent of those enrolled

at either day or residential facilities). Since some off-campus services are

provided to these students in the home, the opportunities for integration with

nonhandicapped peers may be even less for these students. The highest

proportions of students served in off-campus settings were those age 18

through 21 (17 percent of day school students and 27 percent of residential

students), reported to be in off-campus settings for education, training, or

work placements for all or part of the school day. Again, large proportions

(from half to three-quarters of the older students, in day ard residential

facilities, respectively) in off-campus programs are in settings (such as

sheltered workshops or other separate educational settings) which do not

necessarily provide opportunities for integration.

The case study facilities provide examples of student participation in

educational programs providing contacts with nonhandicapped peer contacts.

Some of these contacts were during transition programming, in which facility

students were placed in the local public school in either general or special

ITI. 276

3 1 7

TABLE IV.1

PERCENT OF SEPARATE SCHOOL STUDENTS ATTENDINGOFF-CAMPUS EDUCATIONAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

Ace of Students0-5

XtICE

6-17 18-21

DAY PROGRAM STUDENTS

On-Campus Full-Time 90.8 89.6 83.4

Off-Campus Part-Time 9.2 10.4 16.6

RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM STUDENTS

On-Campus Full-Time 90.6 81.5 73.5

HH Off-Campus Full- or Part-Time 9.4 18.5 26.5H;3


See Tables 111.1 through 111.6 in Part Two of Volume II for more detailed breakdowns.

education classes. In other cases, some students were enrolled in specific

courses in the local public schools as part of their academic curriculum at

the separate facility; this was often the case in facilities for sensory

impaired students which were not equipped to offer advanced classes in

mathematics science, foreign languages, or other subjects to students pursuing

an academic curriculum. These types of formal or informal arrangements with

the local school district were also used by various case study facilities to

provide vocational training in local vocational-technical schools for students

with non-cognitive impairments. Links with local public schools to provide

specialized academic or vocational services were, for obvious reasons, most

often used for secondary school age students.

In addition, some case study facilities had special arrangements for

younger age students. In one instance, a HeadStart program on-campus served

both handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers. In a State-operated

psychiatric facility, younger children were educated off-site in classrooms

at local public schools and shared lunchrooms, physical education facilities,

and vocational programs with nonhandicapped students. Some mentally retarded

preschool and first-grade students from a locally operated separate facility,

accompanied by a teacher and aide, regularly attended the nearby local public

school program.

2. Non-Instructional Activities

In addition to opportunities for interaction with nonhandicapped persons

provided during the school day as part of off-campus placements, the Survey

of Separate Facilities also found that generally from 10 to 20 percent of

students of all ages in separate facilities nationally were reported to

111.278

3 I S

interact with nonhandicapped peers at various social activities and off-campus

events (see Table IV.2). Even activities in which relatively high proportions

(between 60 to 80 percent) of students at separate facilities were reported

to participate (social activities, organized physical exercise or games, and

field trips) the proportion of students participating in these types of

activities with nonhandicapped peers was less than 20 percent.

The case study facilities provide some detailed examples of the types of

integration opportunities available at separate facilit:es. Field -ips

off-campus included visits to community businesses and public places, suc i. as

shopping malls, restaurants, churches, and recreational facilities. Some case

study facilities for sensory impaired students and for mentally retarded

students made special note of regularizing sti;d community contact as part of

the facility's educational program. A number of publicly operated facilities

also reported that their students participated in extracurricular activities

such as parties, assemblies, and other special events with students from local

public schools.2 several case study facilities for students with mental

retardation noted that peer volunteers from local public schools were involved

with the handicapped students as tutors, *buddies,* classroom aides, and in

other similar capacities.

3. Chanaes in Opoortunities_for Student Interaction

Nationally, between 50 and 65 percent of separate facilities, depending

upon whether they operated day or residential programs and whether they were

2Facilities operated by local education agencies tended to have higherlevels of interaction by virtue of the fact that they were generally in closerphysical proximity to schools for nonhandicapped students.

III. 279

320

TABLE IV.2

PERCENT OF SEPARATE SCHOOL STUDENTSPARTICIPATING IN NON-INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES ANDPERCENT PARTICIPATING WITH NONHANDICAPPED PEERS

Day SchoolStudents

Residential SchoiT--Students

Social Activities, e.g., partiesParticipating 64.2 76.7Participating with non-handicapped

peers 20.2 17.1

Dance, Music, DramaParticipating 45.1 48.8Participating with non-handicapped

peers 10.5 9.1

Organized Physical Exercise, GamesParticipating 71.3 78.8Participating with non-handicappedpeers 13.6 10.6

Field TripsParticipating 61.6 66.7Participating with non-handicapped

peers 16.8 12.9

Other Off-Campus Events, e.g., movies,concertsParticipating 27.0 54.7Participating with non-handialoped

peers 15.3 20.2

Competitive SportsParticipating 15.8 23.5Participating with non-handicappedpeers 4.1 8.2

Special Interest Clubs/ActivitiesParticipating 14.0 22.6Participating with non-handicapped

peers 3.8 5.9

SOURCE: Survey nf Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of thisstudy.

See Tables 111.17 and 111.18 in Part Two of Volume 11 for more detailedbreakdowns.

3 ')

111.280

operated by public or private agencies, reported that students in 1988 had

more opportunit1es to interaction with nonhandicapped peers compared with

students in 1976 (see Table IV.3). This change was less evident in facilities

serving emotionally disturbed students and more evident in those facilities

serving students with mental retardation. The case study facilitic3 provide

examples of the specific types of changes, including:

o Increased opportunities for interaction associated withtransition activities or more joint programming with localpublic school programs

o Increased involvement in community-based activities (such aspatronage of local entertainment and stores) as part oftraining in community living skills

o Increased use of field trips

The case study facilities also indicated a variety of reasons for these

increases in opportunities for student interaction with nonhandicapped peers.

For example, availability of funds was noted by some State-operated facilities

as factors permitting more field trips and increased cooperation with LEAs.

In the latter case, this was achieved by providing the funding necessary to

increase suitable programming in the local public schools for students from

the separate facility. SEA dissemination of models for community involvement

by students with severe and profound rttardation, preseilted at conferences and

in publications, was also cited as factor in increasing opportunities for

such students. However, generally increases in the number of field trips were

more frequently associated with facility staff's own interest and initiative.

III. 281

322

VILE IV.3

PERCENT OF NNENIIMATOPS AIMING VIM STRIDENT MITMEE IN OPPORTINETIES FOR INIERALTra WITh NONWEDICAPPEO PEERS

As cowered with 1976, students atthe facility hew ore opportumitiesto imterect with nonhandicopped Natal Emotiomal

laddi211---PistirtImiceAll

Schools_

DAY ROMANS

Public 69.1 66.4

Private 69.5 36.2 60.7

Total 69.2 36.5 56.3


Public 64.2 60.3 64.0

Private 70.7 48.3 68.5

Total 67.1 441.8 58.8


Indicates estimates for Mich sample size is judged insufficient to permit reliable statisticalinference. In additioe, Where the percentages reported are zero or 100, it is not possible tocalculate sampling variances mime stamdard methods.

ki

111.282

The deinstitutionalization movement and the stress on development of

functional life sflls were mentioned by facilities for students with mental

retardation as changing their expectations and practices reg&rding student

involvement with the community, and leading them to provide more off-caulpus

activities including opportunities to practice life skills (such as shopping)

in community settings. Case study facilities adding transition programs with

trial placements in the student's home schoe had, by the nature of that

program, increased opportunities for interaction with peers during the school

day and in extracurricular activities.

4. tummy

While from half to two-thirds of separate facilities reported increased

opportunitios for students to interact with nonhandicapped peers since 1975,

there have not been major changes in the types of opportunities provided.

Most separate facilities already provided at least some opportunities for

students to participate in off-cawpus activities, particularly outside the

regular school day. Moreover, the extent to which such activities involve

students in interactions with nonhandicapped peers appears generally to be

low.

While SEA funds and technical assistance have had some impact on changes

in this area, most changes appear to be the result of staff initiative in

response to changing expectations and goals for students within the special

education field and -hanging opportunities and acceptance of handicapped

students in society and community.

III. 283

324

B. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Notification to parents and involvement of parents in placement and

educational programming decisions for their handicapped child is a hallmark

of P.L. 94-142. More than ten years after the passage of the Education of the

Handicapped Act in 1975, virtually all separate facilities reported providing

parents with opportunities to participate in the development and review of

their child's IEP (see Table IV.4). According to data collected in the 1988

Survey of Separate Facilities, annual written reports on student progress are

provided once a year to parents by about 12 percent of separate facilities,

while one-third to three-quarters provide reports three cr more times per

year. Meetings with parents are scheduled once a year by 14 percent of day

facilities and 29 pt..zent of residential facilities, and an additional

50 percent of facilities schedule meetings three times a year or more.

The case study facilities illustrate various aspects of the involvement

of parents in the education of their children and of changes in the provision

by separate facilities of other types of support services to parents. One

aspect has to do with parental response to opportunities for involvement in

student's program at separate facilities. About half of the case study

facilities reported that involvement by parents was generally quite poor,

beyond that minimally required to agree to placement and IEP decisions. Many

of these facilities served emotionally disturbed students, and most noted that

emotional or other problems in the family were often the reason the child was

placed (usually by a non-education agency) in their facility. Facilities

(particularly State-operated programs) serving a wide area also noted that

III. 284

TABLE IV.4

PERCENT OF SEPARATE rACILITIESREPORTING ON STUDENT PROGRESS TO PARENTS

Number of TimesPer Calendar Year

SeparateDay

Schools

SeparateResidential

Schools

Formal written reports to parents0 times/year 1.3 3.31 time/year 13.3 12.32 times/year 19.6 10.13-4 times/year 45.8 52.15 or sore 19.9 22.2

Meetings with parents0 times/year 0.3 2.01 time/year 14.1 29.12 times/year 34.9 21.53-4 times/year 37.2 28.35 or more 13.3 19.1

SOURCE: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988study.

See Tables 111.13 and 111.14 in Part Two of Volume II forbreakdowns.

3 6111.285

as part of this

more detailed

distance and lack of financial resources often limited the ability of parents

to be more invoived in facility-based activities. Another set of case study

facilities described the level of parental involvement as variable, generally

corresponding with the child's age or with points of transition in the

student's program. For example, parents ef young children were often heavily

invc ved with developing the child's educational program and interacting with

facility staff; this generally tapered off until a major point of transition,

such as the move to another level or type of program within the facility or

when the student was about to leave the facility.

Facilities have used mechanisms other than written progress reports and

IEP meetings, to involve parents. Many of the mechanisms or opportunities

used at separate facilities are similar to those used by other schools, since

parental involvement is of key concern in all educational settings. Some

specific rechanisms reported by the case study facilities include:

o Parent in-service training

o Open-houses or parent days

o Parent support groups

o Parent/teacher associations

o Opportunities for parents to volunteer in the classroom

These types of activities for parents were frequently reported in most of the

case study facilities. In addition, some facilities placed parent', on

advisory councils or the facility's board of directors.

Case study facilities also reported a number of ways they tried to

involve individual parents in their child's program. Several facilities used

III. 286

3.)7

parent-teacher conferences as a way to keep parents informed and involved.

Other approachei unique to special education programs included offering

individualized parent training to maintain, once at home, skills and behaviors

acquired by the student in school, providing crisis intervention, 4nd making

referrals and generally aiding in the transition once the student left the

facility. In addition, a small number of facilities offered parents respite

care and one maintained residential arrangements on campus for distant parents

who wanted to visit their child or attend facility activities.

A practice unique to facilities for emotionally disturbed students was

the involvement of parents in family therapy to supplement the student's

therapeutic program at the facility. Three-fifths of the case study

facilities for emotionally disturbed students used this approach to parental

involvement, most requiring parental participation in therapy as a

prerequisite for admission of the student, although some encouraged, but did

not require, such participation.

I. Changes in Level of Parental Involvement

Among the case study facilities, about half reported increased parental

involvement and that the increase was most directly affected by SEA standards

developed in response to the IFP provisions f P.L. 94-142 regarding parental

involvement. The case study facilities indicated that the IEP requirements

had forced even reluctant parents to become more involved in the educational

decisions affecting their children. Senral also specifically mentioned that

the focus on parental involvement during compliance monitoring helped to

reinforce their efforts to include parents in the IEP process and had resulted

in an increase in parental involvement.

III. 287

328

Only a few of the case study facilities reported that pareAts were

generally less involved than in the past. All of these facilities nJted that

difficulties within the families of students had increased, along with

severity of student impairment, making it less likely that partnts would have

the capacity emotionally or physically to participate actively in their

children's educational program or in programs sponsored by the facility.

On the other hand, several case study facilities mentioned the greater

severity of impairments among students, particularly mentally retarded

students, as an important factor in increased parental involvement. In

particular, their student populations had become more severely impaired,

multi-handicapped, and/or medically involved, and these facilities indicated

that the increased need by parents for information and support in managing

specialized therapy and medical requirements as well as in reinforcing and

developing functional skills was associated with increased parental

involvement both in their children's individual education program and in

parent groups and activities at the facility. For example, in one facility,

the impetus for increased parental involvement in the parent association was

to raise funds for the additional materials and equipment that were needed for

the more severely impaired student population.

Several case study facilities also noted that the SEA had developed

parent information materials that had increased parent awareness of their

rights to be involved in student programming decisions and to participate in

IEP meetings and other facility activities. In some cases, the facility

itself distributed the SEA.materials to parents, and in others, the SEA-funded

resource/materials center was responsible for dissemination of those

III. 288

materials. The resource/materials center in another State provided in-service

training and workshops for parents and in that State it was reported that

involvement by parents had increased as a result.

2. Chanaes in Parent-Oriented Activities/Proarams

As found in the Survey of Separate Facilities (see Table IV.5), a large

majirity (about 80 percent) of separate facilities reported that facility

staff had increased their involvement with parents since 1976. Thecae study

facilities also provided examples of specific activities or programs for

parental involvement that were developed during the period since 1975. Added

or enhanced activities included parent-teacher conferences and other

communication avenues between the facility and parents, workshops or training

sessions for parents, p_rent associations, open houses for parents, and family

counseling support.

The initiative of the case study facilities' own teachers or

administrators were key factors in trying tn increEse parental involvement by

setting up parent-oriented activities and programs at several facilities.

Activities initiated by the fAcilities themselves included individual contacts

by teachers with parents, development of a State-wide parent association,

provision of parent-infant institutes, and provision of family counseling.

At several case study facilities, the parent notification standards

derived from EHA were the impetus for facilities developing specific parent

outreach efforts--mailing of IEPs and student progress reports to parents of

students in a State facility for persons with mental retardation, and parent

conferences to keep parents of emotionally disturbed students placed at a

III. 289

330

;

TAKE IV.S

PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATORS AGREEINGWITH STATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN CONTACT WITH PARENTS

As capered with 1976, facilitystaff has had increased contact

Primary Oisabilit' Served by the Facility

Mental Emotional All

DAY PROGRAMS

PUblic 88.1 * 83.2

Private 80.2 80.5 80.0

Total 86.0 77.4 81.9


Public 80.3 72.4 78.5

Private 83.8 76.4 77.1

Total 82.3 74.4 78.0

UWNU:E: Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 as part of this study.

Indicates estimates for which sample size is judged insufficient to permit reliable statisticalinference. In adJltiln, uftre the percentages reported are zero or 100, it is not possible tocalculate sampling variances using standard methods.

331

17.1.290

private facility informed of their rights. Some public failities for

mentally retardid students made note of the use of EHA-B set-aside funds to

sponsor parent training at Cie facility. The availability of SEA staff to

participate in parent training and workshops at the ftxility was also noted

by some facilities as a factor in their ability to provide parent workshops.

Another facility noted the encouragement it received from the non-SEA State

agency under which it was adminisred in developing parent-teacher

confe-ences and open houses for parents.

3. Summary

Parental involvement has changed significantly since the passage of

P.L. 94-142, as a direct result of the requirement that parents be informed

of their right to participate in educational decisions affecting their

children. The incorporation of this requirement into State statute and

regulations and monitoring of compliance were both credited by staff at the

case study facilities as having major impacts on the general increase in

parental involvement they had observed since 1975. Facilities were responsive

to SEA requirements and procedures to ensure that parents are informed of and

involved in decisions regarding their child's educational program, and

facility efforts sometimes built on the information and training provided to

parents by the SEA. However, even though facility contact with parents has

increased and has been routinized through the IEP process, separate facilities

also reported low average participation by parents in activities that go

beyond those requirements. It was also reported that parental involvement was

often highly variable, both across individuals based upon their own capacity

III. 291

332

and interest and for a given parent, across stages in the chi 2's educational

career.

Even so, some facilities have expanded and added specific activities to

broaden the information provided to parents about their child's placement and

program, to provide training and support to parents, and to involve parents

in other activities at the facility. Facility ieadership and the deepening

impact of State requirements for parent participation were the most often

mentioned factors in the development of activities for parents, beyond

notification of and invitation to IEP meetings.

e.t)

III. 292

V. SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATIOnAL PRACTICE ATSEPARATE FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS

The integrated survey/cAso study effort undertaken in the Study of

Programs of Instruction for Handicapped Children and Youth in Day and

Residential Facilities had two major goals. One goal was to identify and

describe the most important ways in which separate facilities providing

educational and other services to students with handicaps had changed in the

years since the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Act of

1975. This goal is addressed in the analysis of the survey data provided by

the Survey of Separate Facilities, conducted in 1988 with a large nationally

representative sample of separate facilities, but the case study effort

provides a more detailed exaGination of a number of important changes in

facility educational practice. The second goal of the study was to determine

the most important factors affecting the changes reported by separate

facilities, particularly factors related to the procedures put in place by the

State educational agencies to improve programs at those facilities. This goal

was primarily addressed by the case study effort.

The chapters in Part Two of this volume described SEA procedures

(standards, monitoring, funding, technical assistance and training, and

program development and dissemination) in eight States, and concluded with

some hypotheses about how the variation in these procedures across the States

might be related to the influence SEAs have had on changes at separate

facilities serving students with mental retardation or multiple handicaps,

emotional disturbance, or sensory impairments. Part Three has examined

several critical areas of facility educational programming in terms t the

111.293

3:14

current practice in each area, changes in practice, and factlrs reported by

the facility leidership and staff to have had an impact on changes. This

summey chapter briefly reviews the major changes that were reported in each

area of facility practice, summarizes t)e factors associated with these

changes, and examines variation in the impact of SEA procedures across both

States and facility operators.

A. MAJOR CHANGES REPORTED IN FACILITY PRACTICES

This study examined changes in facility practice in three main areas:

o Programs and methods of instruction, including planning toprepare students for and support them during transition fromthe separate facility either to their next educationalplacement or to community and vocational adult life,vocational and life skills training, integration of therapyand/or related services into the educational setting, andprogram evaluation

o Staffing, including the numbers and types of staff employed,staff development activities, and staff evaluation practices

o Opportunities for students to interact with nonhandicappedpeers and to become involved in the local community where theylive or attend school and for parents to become more broadlyinvolved in their children's education and in support andother activities provided by the facility their childrenattend

Not all areas have seen the same degree of change during the years since the

passage of P.L. 94-142, and change has been affected by different factors.

1. Proarams and Methods of Instruction

The most frequently mentioned changes in the area of transition planning

and programming were the development of more formal plans, associated with

State requirements for such plans, SEA technical assistance and training in

III. 294

their preparation, and an increased recognition of the need for such plans as

students move between educational placements and into the adult world.

The most frequently mentioned change in educational programs at the

separate facilities included in the case study was an increased emphasis on

vocational and community living preparation and training. These changes were

most often associated with changes in the characteristics of the student

population and their needs, with information and training provided by the

State special education staff or resource/materials centers supported by the

SEA, and with special funds available to support new or innovative provams

in this area.

Of particular interest, although mentioned by only a few facilities, are

innovative programs providing studevs with "real wc' experiences in

vocaticnal and residential settings, through trial emplovment and independent

living arrangements. Facilities' own leadership and initiative and State

financial support and technical assistance were the factors most often

associated with these innovations, which were most often in place at State-

operated residential facilities.

The factor most often associated with the other major change in

instructional practice, the increased use of psychological, physical and

occupational therapy and other related services in the educational setting,

was the increase in severity of impairment and prevalence of multiple

handicapping conditions among the students at separate facilities.

2. 5taffino

There have been substantial changes in the quality of instructional staff

since 1976, in terms of appropriateness of training and prevalence of

III. 295

316

certification among staff at separate facilities. A major factor influencing

these changes was reported to be State certification standards. Availability

of SEA provided or supported technical assistance and training was also

credited with improveients in the quality and credentials of staff.

Separate facilities reported changes in the types of instnctional and

related services personnel employed, including more staff trained and

certified to teach multihandicapped and severely impaired students, vocational

teachers and transition training staff, nurses and medical staff, occupational

and physical therapists, social workers and psychologists, and administrative

staff for new programs or outreach efforts. These changes were primarily

attributed to changes in student characteristics, particularly in the severity

of impairment, and changes in programming such as increased emphasis on life

skills and vocational preparation, transition programs, and integrated

treatment and educational approaches. However, recruitment and retention of

qualified staff continue to be problems facing substantia numbers of separate

facilities, as they respond to changing student needs.

The principal changes in the staff development opportun14-ies available

at the separate facilities included a shift in the focus of sta development

topics from compliance issues to instructional approaches, a larger number of

opportunities, and a closer relationship of staff development to identified

student and staff needs. While the change in topics was most often associated

with changes in the needs of the student population, SEA-provided or supported

sources of technical assistance and information dissemination were noted by

about half the facilities as a factor associated with the increase in staff

111.296

development opportunities and for their focus on topics more closely

associated with'student and staff needs.

Staff evaluation activities were not reported to have changed

substantially by most facilities.

3. O000rtunities for_Student Interaction and Parental Involvement

Although currInt levels of student intcraction with nonhandicapwl pecrs,

either as part of instructional programs or during noninstructional

activities, are generAlly fairly low, substantial proportions of separate

facilities, particularly public facilities, reported that students now have

more opportunities for such interaction than in the past. A variety of

factors were associated with these changes, including funding for field trips

and for appropriate educational programs in local public schools in which

students from separate facilities could participate, dissemination by the SEA

of models for community involvement, and increases in societal and staff

expectations for fuller participation by handicapped persons in community

life.

Parental involvement in the planning of their children's educational

programs and services had changed significantly since the passage of

P.L. 94-142 and its requirement that parents of students with handicaps be

informed of and involved in the development and revisions of Individualized

Educational Plans (IEPs). This requirement, incorporated into State

standards, was frequently mentioned as a factor in the increased invol,ment

of parents reported by the case study facililes. However, parents'

participation in other activities provided by t.a facilitius, inclading

support and information programs, was generally only moderate at most.

III. 297

3:48

Facilities had increased their activities involving parents, partly as a

continued responie to the EHA requirements and also as an expression of the

commitment of facility staff to work with parents ln meeting both student and

family needs.

B. VARIATION IN THE EFFECT OF SEA PROCEDURES ON FACILITY PRACTICE

Based on information provided during the case studies, public facilities,

whether operated by State or local agencies, were more likely than private

farilities to report the effect of SEA standards in chdnges in facility

practice, while the differences in the impact of funding and monitoring across

the types of facilities were relatively minor. Separate facilities operated

by local or regional public agencies gave more credit to SEA-provided or

funded technical assistance and information dissemination for changes in their

programs than did either State-operated or private facilities. This confirms

the reports by SEA staff that, because SEA conferences, workshops, and

resource/materials centers are generally geared toward local district special

education programs, facility staff at St4te and private separate facilities

are not as likely to attend and/or to gain new information or skills from such

activities, even though they are routinely invited to participate.

The effect of standards was fairly consistent across the eight States,

although they are most frequently mentioned in Connecticut, Florida,

Louisiana, and South Carolina. Facilities in Ohio and Illinois also

frequently mentioned monitoring as having an effect on changes in educational

practice. A review of procedures, however, does not reveal any consistent

approaches to monitoring across these States. Both Ohio and Illinois appear

to provide more technical assistance during follow up to monitoring than other

I I I . 298

t.5

States, while Connecticut and Florida both make use of separate units within

the SEA special *education division for monitoring, although other case study

states also have such specialization as well. The use of self-evaluation as

part of the monitoring process may, in the future, prove to be effective in

facility changes as well, although this procedure is too recent to be

evaluated in this study.

Technical assistance, training, program development, and dissemination

activities of the SEA or of SEA-supported resource/materials r .ers were most

often mentioned by the facilities in Ohio than in any other State as having

wide ranging effects on facility practice. There was a wide gap between Ohio

and the other case study States in the number of ways in which such SEA

procedures influenced separate facilities. The most obvious difference

between Ohio's technical assistance and dissemination system and those of the

other States is its close link to program monitoring and the focus of

monitoring on providing technical assistance for program improvement as well

as for procedural compliance.' Ohio also allocates a large proportion of its

EHA-B set-aside funds for the SERRC system of centers, although other States

also do so.

C. SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING FACILITY CHANGE

Many changes in facility educational practice are directly related to

changes in the number and characteristics of the students served at those

facilities, in particular to the increases in severity of impairment and

prevalence of multiple handicaps. All case study facilities reported that

'Other States (Louisiana, for example) are in the process of implementingsimilar procedures.

III. 299

340

changes in staffing patterns or staff development activities reflected changes

in the student population, as did many changes in the content of programs and

the instructional approaches used. Facility leadership and facility staff

have responded to their observations about the changing needs of their

students with in-service training and program development designed to meet

those needs. A small number of directors, generally of State-operated and

privet, facilities, also mentioned the importance of facility participation

in outside accreditation organizations and professional associations in

keeping themselves and their staff abreast of the most up-to-date methods and

approaches for educating handicapped students, particularly those with severe,

multiple, and/or low-incidence handicaps.

The procedures implemented by State educational agencies are also

frequently influential in the changes at separate facilities. Implementation

of SEA standards are mentioned by almost all case study facilities as having

an effect on changes in one or more areas of facility practice, particularly

in staff certification, in-service training, activities to involve parents in

educational plans and programming, and in transition activities. However,

monitoring activities apart frem the effect of the standards themselves, were

not often noted by facilities as influential in change. This reinforces the

observation that most monitoring procedures focus on compliance with Federal

and State standards and not on issues of program content or instractional

approach.' Funding was another SEA procedure which was not frequently

mentioned as factor in changes in facility educational practices directly.

214onitoring of placement decisions made by LEAs does in effect look atprogram content and approach in relation to individual student needs, butseparate facilities are not responsible for placement decisions.

III. 30C

34i

Funding levels were generally considered an important parameter -Rhin which

all facilities Must operate, but specific funding initiatives were not often

cited as producing changes in facility practice. The effect of funding was

most probably felt indirectly through changes in student population associated

with any incentives or disincentives funding has for placement decisions in

a given State.

The State special education system for the delivery of technical

assistance, training, program development, and information dissemination was

a frequently mentioned factor in one or N.re changes at almost all of the

twenty-four case study facilities. Most frequently affected were changes in

staff development activities, although these procedures also influenced

facility program development activities (including transition) in almost half

the facilities, and changes in program evaluation in one-third.

With the federal mandate given by P.L. 94-142, States have taken on an

increasing role in the oversight and support of special education programs in

separate facilities, particularly those in State-operated facilities. The

procedures States use to exercise their role have been effective to some

degree in influencing changes in educational practices at separate facilities

of all types since 1975. However, it should be noted that the leadership and

staff of these facilities also frequently mentioned other factors with as

great, or sometimes greater, effect on these changes. Such factors include

changes in the number, handicapping conditions, and severity of Impairment of

students, and chanties in state-of-the-art practice that are communicated

through peer relationships and organizational affiliations and translated into

practice through the initiative of facility administrators and staff.

III. 301

342

THE STUDY OF PROGRAMS Cf INSTRUCTIORFOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND YOUTHIN DAY AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

,



TECHNICAL APPENDICES

343

TECHNICAL APPENDIX III.ADATA USED IN SELECTION OF STATES FOR CASE STUDY

The following analyses' were performed to provide a list of potential

States for ease study:

1. Examination of States in terms of current (1983-84) useof separate facilities for all handicaped students(Table III.A.1)

2. Examination of States in terms of change (1976-77 to1983-84) in use of separate facilities for all handicappedstudents, in number of students (Table III.A.2) and in

percent of handicapped students (Table III.A.3)

3. Examination of States in terms of 1984-85 use of separateday facilities for mentally retarded/multiply handicapped,emotionally disturbed, or sensory impaired students, for dayfacilities (Table III.A.4) and for residential facilities(Table III.A.5). The three handicap groupings used in thisanalysis were selected based on prior analyses of placementdata (see Tables III.A.6 and III.A.7) which identifiedchildren with these handicaps as the most likely, in

general, to be served in separate facilities

A. ANALYSES OF STATE USE OF SEPARATE FACILITIES

The first two set!' of placement analyses examined the extent to which

States served handicapped children in settings other than the regular school

environment (i.e., in separate schools and other environments) duri4 the

1983-84 school year and the extent to which State placement patterns had

changed from 1976-77 to 1983-84.

The 1984-85 placement data reported by the States to OSEP :n the Annual

Data Reports, unlike that provided by the States for prior school years,

'All analyses included data on the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

III. 303

344

required that Sta-es provide counts of the numbers of students served in

specific types df day and residential facilities. The proportion of students

with each of three categories of handicapping conditions (those widely served

in separate facilities generally), by type of facility, was calculated for

each State. The number of students served in private and public placements

were combined to calculate these proportions, based on preliminary data

available at the time these analyses were conducted. Subsequently, some

State-specific data reports were amended.

B. ANA!YSIS BY HANDICAP GROUP OF PLACEMENT PATTERWS IN SEPARATE FACILITIES

The patterns of placement in separate public and private day and

residential facilities were based on preliminary 1984-85 data as well, and the

proportion of students served in separate facilities, by handicapping

condition, were calculated for the nation as a whole.

Because of the relative prevalence of these various handicapping

conditions among the handicapped children being served in the nation's

schools, a second analysis (see Table III.A.7) was undertlicen in which the

proportion of students being served in each type of facility was divided by

the proportion of students with each handicapping condition to ascertain which

conditions were over- or under-represented among the students being served in

day and residential facilities.

111.304

TABLE III.A.1

STUDENTS IN SEPARATE SETTINGS BY AGE GROUPS, 1983-84(PERCENT OF TOTAL HANDICAPPED STUDENT POPULATION)

eneraRank 3-5 Year Olds 6-17 Year Olds 18-21 Year Olds

High

Low

Arkansas (41%) Connecticut (10%) Arkansas (44%)Colorado (34%) Delaware (17%) Delaware (39%)Dist. of Columbia (20%) Dist. of Columbia (36.5%)Nevada (43%) Illinois ( 9%) Florida (39%)New York (55%) Maryland (12%) Idaho (81%)Rhode Island (67%) New York (13%) Illic.ois (39%)Utah (39%) Virginia ( 9%) Maryland (45%)

Utah (63%)

Alabama ( 5%) Alabama ( 2%) Alabama ( 8%)California ( 1%) Alaska ( 1%) Alaska ( 2%)Hawaii ( 5%) California ( 1%) California ( 3%)Massachusetts ( 3%) Georgia ( 2%) Michigan (10%)Michigan ( 5%) Iowa

( 2%) Mississippi ( 4%)Minnesota ( 4%) Michigan ( 2%) Mbntana ( 6%)Montana ( 2%) Mississippi ( 1%) New Hampshire ( 9%)Nebraska ( 2%) Oklahoma ( 27) Wyoming ( 7%)South Dakota ( 2%)

Tennessee ( 1%)

West Virginia ( 3%)

U.S. Ave, age 39.8% 5.3% 21.7%


34 6

TABLE III.A.2

CHANGE IN STUDENTS IN SEPARATE SETTING BY AGE GROUP,1976-77 to 1983-84

General

Position 3-5 Year Olds 6-17 Year Olds 18-21 Year Olds

Large Arkansas (1,412) Connecticut (1,952) Florida (1,289)Increase Florida (1,623) Delaware (850) Illinois (4,409)Illinois (1,768) Florida (3,418) Maryland (2,289),Indiana (1,424) Indiana (1,655) Michigan (1,497)Iowa (2,182) Louisiana (735) New York (4,550)Louisiana (1,057) Maryland (5,723) Ohio (3,263)Maryland (1,569) New York (18,324) Pennsylvania (2,627)New York (8,325) Texas (2,855)

Large Kentucky (-1,659) California (-9,549) California (-132)Decrease Massachusetts (-649) Colorado (-6,435) Iowa (-267)Michigan (-559) Georgia (-3,895) Kentucky (-532)Opio (-550) Illinois (-5,958) Michigan (-2,171)Pennsylvania (-1,460) Massachusetts (-16,180) New Jersey (-432)South Carolina (-565) Michigan (-5,800) North Carolina (-273)Wisconsin (-506) Minnesota (-4,357) Wisconsin (-432)Missouri (-7,285)New Jersey (-14,026)Tennessee (-3,771)Texas (-4,073)

U.S. Total 18,387 -69,414 27,735


TABLE III.A.3

1976-77 TO 1983-84 CHANGE IN NUMBER OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTSIN SEPARATE SETTINGS PER 10,000 AGE GROUP MEMBERS IN 1984

eneraPosition 3-5 Year Olds 6-17 Year Olds 18-21 Year Olds

Large Alaska (107) Connecticut (36) Arkansas (40)Increase Arkansas (141) Delamare (79) Connecticut (38)

Maryland (110) Florida (20) Idaho (66)Nevada (108) Indiana (16) Illinois (54)New York (135) Maryland (75) Maryland (70)Rhode Island (184) Montana (18) Massachusetts (34)Vermont (75) New York (59) New York (37)Washington (74) Ohio (43)

Large Dist. of Col. (-75) Arkansas (-54) Iowa (-14)Decrease Hawaii (-44) Colorado (-115) Kentucky (-20)

Kentucky (-105) Massachusetts (-185) Michigan (-33)Massachusetts (-36) Minnesota (-57) New Jersey (-9)South Carolina (-41.5) Missouri (-82) North Carolina (-6)Wisconsin (-27) New Jersey (-106) Vermont (-16)Wyoming (-34) South Dakota (-56) Wisconsin (-12)

West Virginia (-51)

U.S. Average 20.1 -16.3 16.7


348

TABLE III.A.4

PROPORTION OF STUDENTS 3-21 YEARS OLD SERVED IN DAY FACILITIESBY HANDICAPPING CONDITION

1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR

Mentally RetardedMulti-handicapped

Hard of Hearing Si DeafVisually Handicapped

Deaf-Blind Emotionally Disturbed

State Number Percent Rank Number Percent Rank Number Percent RankAverpyeRank

Iowa 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 2 0 0.00 2 1

Nebraska 13 0.14 3 2 0.20 3 0 0.00 2 3New Mexico 65 1.39 5 2 0.30 4 15 0.45 6 5Alabama 10 0.03 2 8 0.77 10 75 1.45 10 7Washington 454 3.15 12 40 1.31 12 8 0.20 3 9Wisconsin 708 4.27 18 33 1.61 13 68 0.38 5 12Idaho 26 0.84 4 8 1.10 11 33 4.81 24 13South Carolina 1,5e7 5.44 21 13 0.69 8 166 1.77 11 13Texas 1,931 3.27 14 335 2.67 16 915 2.57 15 15Michigan 1,219 3.34 15 19 0.40 5 1,547 5.52 26 15Massachusetts 1,480 2.86 10 129 2.78 17 867 2.86 20 16West Virginia 819 6.06 23 5 0.58 7 65 2.66 18 16Montana 144 6.23 25 11 2.01 14 22 2.41 12 17Arizona 374 3.17 13 209 9.40 33 99 1.05 9 18South Dakota 131 3.85 17 12 3.24 22 19 2.65 17 19California 462 1.40 6 38 0.42 6 1,836 20.27 45 19Colorado 1,156 13.62 35 47 2.80 18 40 0.35 4 19Kansas 518 6.98 28 38 3.13 21 45 0.75 8 19Hawaii 101 5.09 20 41 8.51 32 3 0.47 7 20North Carolina 2,329 5.50 22 81 2.30 15 382 3.94 22 20Wyoming 99 7.33 29 2 0.70 9 39 3.39 21 20Georgia 764 2.06 9 367 11.81 39 759 2.41 13 20Oklahoma 280 1.47 7 150 9.65 35 38 2.76 19 20Alaska 54 5.92 27 9 3.30 23 9 2.42 14 21Mississippi 558 3.08 11 117 10.58 38 31 4.91 25 25Vermont 109 3.51 16 14 5.09 25 50 9.24 33 25Nevada 462 27.73 46 0 0.00 2 100 7.27 29 26Maine 708 8.69 30 28 3.08 20 500 8.85 31 27Kentucky 1,600 4.90 19 165 5.22 26 581 17.90 44 30

TABLE III.A.4 (continued)

State

Mentally Retarded

Multi-handicapped

Hard of Hearing & DeafVisually Handicapped


AverageRank

Number Percent Rank Number Percent Rank Number Percent Rank

Ohio 967 1.53 8 264 6.80 20 3,138 42.62 51 30Indiana 3,550 13.17 34 108 4.64 24 388 8.95 32 30Missouri 2,888 10.67 33 212 7.90 31 777 5.87 27 30Tennessee 2,416 9.26 31 315 10.33 37 184 4.68 23 30Virginia 1,851 9.49 32 97 2.96 19 1,970 17.90 43 31Arkansas 1,40C 6.12 24 167 9.74 36 128 15.44 41 34Oregon 956 17.73 38 169 6.79 29 350 12.49 38 35North Dakota 123 6.81 26 108 38.43 50 29 7.46 30 35New Hampshire 263 17.64 37 49 9.42 34 183 12.1 37 36Louisiana 4,178 23.56 43 136 5.61 27 744 14.32 39 36Utah 1,615 29.04 48 563 38.35 49 445 2,57 16 _ ,

Delaware 678 26.56 45 61 19.06 43 276 6.99 28 39Illinois 6,992 20.12 42 344 5.87 28 8,417 23.50 47 39h;nnesota 3,209 15.67 36 406 15.17 41 1,702 15.58 42 40Connecticut 1,259 18.82 40 408 27.24 48 1,524 9.87 35 41Florida 7,522 28.07 47 730 17.68 42 2,544 9.74 34 41Rhode Island 259 18.89 41 145 45.89 51 140 11.08 36 43Pennsylvania 7,215 17.99 39 1,517 22.19 45 4,670 22.83 46 43New Jersey 4,946 25.22 44 637 21.06 44 4,233 23 65 48 45New York 14,329 31.50 49 2,154 25.20 47 7,748 14.38 40 45Maryland 5,976 51.66 51 373 12.63 49 1,830 40.23 50 47District of 586 32.34 50 34 24.11 46 251 29.81 49 48Columbia

50 Stetes & DC 91,339 9.61 10,920 12.30 49,983 9.97

SOCRCE: Preliminary 1984-85 placement data reported by the States to OSEP inthe Annual Data Reports.

352

TABLE III.A.5

PROPORTION OF STUDENTS 3-21 YEARS OLD SERVED IN RESIDENTIAL FACILITIESBY HANDICAPPING CONDITION

1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR


ar o ear ng DeafVisually Handicapped


State Number Percent Rank Number Percent . Rank Number Percent RankAverageRank

Alabama

California- - - -

Nevada 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 2 2 0.15 1 1Utah 3 0.05 2 4 0.27 4 60 0.35 2 3Texas 327 0.55 5 618 4.92 12 141 0.40 4 7Massachusetts 375 0_72 9 34 0.73 6 220 0.73 8 8North Dakota 12 0.66 6 0 0.00 2 6 1.54 15 8Kentucky 220 0.67 7 33 1.04 7 66 2.03 19 11Minnesota 162 0.79 11 187 6.99 19 38 0.35 3 111-1

i-i Pennsylvania 301 0.75 10 411 6.01 17 131 0.64 6 111-1 Aliska 4 0.51 3 1 0.37 5 16 4.30 30 13L...,

'8Delaware 21 0.82 12 14 4.38 10 87 2.20 20 14Michigan 352 0.97 13 208 4.41 11 897 3.20 25 16Missouri 283 1.05 14 373 13.89 31 94 0.71 7 17Georgia 511 1.38 18 359 11.55 27 316 1.00 9 18Arizona 61 0.52 4 318 14.30 32 268 2.85 23 20Wisconsin 327 1.97 23 299 14.62 33 91 0.51 5 20Hawaii 44 2.22 24 0 0.00 2 49 7.69 37 21Iowa 176 1.12 16 278 18.82 37 110 1.38 14 22!outh Carolina 698 2.39 28 245 12.96 30 102 1.09 10 23Illinois 964 2.77 34 436 7.44 21 697 1.95 16 24New Jersey 1,470 7.49 47 91 3.01 8 350 1.96 17 24ArkanseI 429 1.88 21 184 10.74 25 32 3.86 27 24Florida 595 2.22 26 707 17.12 36 300 1.15 11 24

r'r- ,Nebraska 333 3.54 37 100 9.90 24 49 1.24 13 2500,JWest Virginia 146 1.08 15 253 29.18 47 29 1.1 12 25Washington 399 2.77 33 277 9.08 23 91 2.32 21 26Vermont 22 0.71 8 55 20.00 38 35 6.47 33 2(Colorado 217 2.56 30 187 11.16 26 334 2.94 24 27Wyoming 121 8.96 48 10 3.50 9 46 4.00 28 28

'TALE III.A.5 (continued)

[.

& Deaf

Emotionally Disturbed

AverageRank

State


Hard of Hearing

Visually HandicappedDeaf-Blind

Number Percent Rank Number Percent Rank Number Percent Rank

New Mexico 87 1.86 20 ?39 35.05 49 66 2.00 18 29New York 1,591 3.50 36 509 5.95 15 4 56 8.46 41 31Rhode Island 90 6.56 43 17 5.38 13 91 7.21 36 31Tennessee 418 1.60 19 484 15.87 34 320 8.15 39 31New Hampshire 75 5.03 39 31 5.96 16 119 7.94 38 31Indiana 518 1.92 22 555 23.82 43 185 4.27 29 31Maine 215 2.64 32 57 6.26 18 521 9.23 44 31Montana 29 1.25 17 114 20.80 39 78 8.53 42 33District of 46 2.54 29 11 7.80 22 151 17.93 48 33ColumbiaOhio 8,471

13.36 49 273 7.03 20 338 4.59 31 33North Carolina 971 2.29 27 801 22.76 42 541 5.58 32 34Oregon 307 5.69 41 289 11.62 28 197 7.03 35 35t-t-t-

ConnecticutVirginia

462

8386.90

4.3045

3889

3985.94

12.1614

291,476

9159.568.32

4640

35

36k..,

.-

.--

LouisianaKansas

1,202436

6.785.88

4442

641

31626.4526.01

46

45122

211

2.353.53

2226

37

38Oklahoma 1,019 5.34 40 328 21.09 40 92 6.68 34 38Idaho 80 2.58 31 178 24.42 44 60 8.75 43 39Mississippi 402 2.22 25 383 34.63 48 59 9.34 45 39Maryland 403 3.48 35 638 21.61 41 458 10.07 47 41South Dakota i.42 7.10 46 62 16.76 35 143 19.97 49 43

50 StaLs & DC 26,475 2.79 12,095 13.62 15,356 3.06

SOURCE: Preliminary 1984-85 placement data reportei by the States to OSEP inthe Annual Data Reports.

355 356

,

TABLE III.A.6

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS BY TYPE OF SEPARATE FACILITY1964-85 SCHOOL YEAR

PublicSEparate

DayFacility

it %

Private

SeparateDay

Facilityit

Public

ResidentialFacility

PrivateResidehtialFacility

(or---V(%) it) (%)

Learning Disabled 20,241 14 14,205 16 555 1 1,032 6

Speech or Language Impaired 10,870 7 27,715 31 313 1 293 2

HMentally Retarded 57,295 38 14,555 16 17,689 IL 2,694 16H

HL.)

,-

Emotionally Disturbed 32,098 21 17,975 20 6,337 15 9,019 54

Hard of Hearing/Deaf 5,113 3 3,262 4 7,577 18 /64 5

MuAihandicapped 12,570 8 6,919 8 4,354 11 1,738 10

Orthopedically Impaired 6,712 4 2,803 3 416 1 369 2

Other Health Impaired 2,907 2 1,420 2 531 1 411 2

Visually Handicapped 1,143 1 922 1 2,743 7 289 2

Deaf-Blind 430 0 109 0 640 2 82 0

- All Conditions 149,F,46 100 89,951 100 41,182 100 16,717 100

SOURCE: Preliminary 1984-85 placenent data reported by the States to OSEP inthe Anflgal Data Ref rts.

TABLE III.A.7

PROPORTION OF STUDENTS 3-21 YEARS OLD,BY TYPE OF SEPARATE FACILITY

AN1 HANOICAPPING CONDITION

1984 SCHOOL YEAR

Han icappingCondition

% inFacility

in

Child Countndex o

_Representation

Public Separate Day Facilities (149,546)

Mental

Retardation 38 16 2.4

EmotionalDisturbance 21 9 2.3

LearningDisability 14 42 .3

MultipleHandicaps 8 2 4.0

Speech

Impaired 7 26 .3

Private Separate Day Facilities (89,951)

Speech

Impaired 31 26 1.2

Emotional

Disturbance 20 9 2.2

LearningDisability 16 47 .4

Mental


35111.313

TABLE III.A:7 (continued)

HanaicappingCondition

% in

Facility% in

Child CountInaex of

Representation

Public Residential Facilities (41,182)

Mental


Hard of Hearingand Deaf 18 2 9.0

Emotional

Disturbance 15 9 1.7

MultipleHandicaps 11 2 5.5

Visual

Impairment 7 1 7.0

P, iate Residential Facility (16,717)

EmotionalDisturbance 54 9 6.0

Mental


MultipleHandicaps

learning

10 2 5.0

Oisability 6 42 .1

SOURCE: Preliminary 1984-85 placement data reported by the States to OSEP inthe Annual Data Reports.

NOTE: Total Count of Students a 4,315,094.

'A value of 1.0 indicates equal representation of the group in separatefacilities as in the handicapped population as a whole, a value greater than1.0 indicates over-representation of the group in separate facilitiescompared to the total population and a value less than 1.0 indicatesunderrepresentation of this group in separate facilities.

111.314

i;bt.)

TECHNICAL APPENDIX III.0STATE SITE VISIT PROTOCOL OUTLINE AND PPnCEDURES

The State site visit protocol contained a guide for review of State

documents and discussions with State educational agency staff and staff of

other State agencies. It also contained instructions regarding activities

each site analyst was to complete preparatory to the site visit, during the

site visit, and after the site visit. Appended to the protocol were sample

letters and other materials sent to State directors and liaison staff prior

to the site visit.

Overview of TODic Guide

The following topic areas were covered in the guide:

- State economic and political context

- Legislative and court action affecting separate facilities

- Role of other State agencies in special education

- Use of separate facilities

- Structure and funding of SEA

- SEA procedures: Allocation of funds

- Long-range planning and evaluation

- Interaction with LEAs/IEUs

- Interaction with State-operated programs

- Interaction with private facilities

- SEA goals for improvement of education in separate facilities

- SEA procedures: Program/curriculum development

- SEA procedures: Staff certificationistandarG,

III. 315

- SEA procedures: Personnel development

- SEA proCedures: In-service training

- SEA procedures: Technical assistance

- SEA procedures: Dissemination/communication

- SEA procedures: Monitoring

- SEA procedures: Facility standards and approval process

- Factors affecting implementation of SEA procedures in separatefacilities

Most topics had two sets of pages: (1) a page which outlined the

specific topics to be addressed under each general topic and a column in which

to note the document source(s) and/or individual(s) from which specific

information was obtained, and (2) a facing page with suggested probes to be

used during the discussion. As nc 1 below, the site analyst was required to

select the appropriate topics for a particular individual respondent,

depending upon the individual's position and experience within the SEA (or

other agency).

Site Analyst Activities Preparatory to Site Visit

In the most cases the site analyst had the following materials for review

prior to the site visit:

Annual plans submitted to the U.S. Department of Education inapplication for 94-142 funds

State statutes and/or regulations pertaining to specialeducation

Monitoring forms.(and sometimes procedures manuals)

Organizational charts for the special education division (andsometimes the Department of Education).

III. 316

; 2

Miscellaneous other background materials, when available, were also reviewed.

Prior to tile site visit the analyst used the topic guide to identify

pertinent sections of the documents and made notes regarding State-specific

organizational structares, procedures, changes, or events to be probed. The

analyst also reviewed the organizational chart(s) to identify any potential

respondents who may not have been scheduled.

Site Analyst Activities During the Site Visit

Generally, the first morning of the site visit was spent witn the

designated liaison staff person in the division or office of special education

within the SEA. The analyst generally reviewed the following with the

liaison, in addition to any other substantive issues:

- Schedule for visit (confirming times and locations ofinterviews, specific topics for each respondent)

- Procedures used to schedule interviews with additional staff

- Procedures used to ob ain additional documents identifiedduring interviews

- Plans to distribute site report for review and correction bySEA staff

- General SEA and 4ecial education division organizationalstructure and responsibilities

- Basic facts about the special education delivery system inthe State (particularly the involvement of other Stateagencies and intermediate education units)

All interview notes were recorded in notebooks, and each evening of the

site visit, the analyst was to review the day's notes, annotating them as

necessary to ensure legibility and completeness and to iaentify outstanding

III. 317

363

issues. At that time, the next day's agenda was also reviewed to eL-4re that

the analyst had'identiMd all the relevant questions for each respondent.

The analyst generally conducted a brief exit interview with the liaison

to discuss follow-4 activities and to express appreciation for their

assistance on the project.

Site_Analvst Activities After the Site Visit

As soon as possible after the site visit, the analyst:

- Sent thank-you letters to each respondent

- Transcribed all notes, as close as possible to verbatim

- Prepared a list of documents to be requested from the liaison,if not done as part of the exit interview

The analyst then prepared the site report following the protocol outline.

Once the report was reviewed by project staff, it was sent to the State

liai-on for review.

318

TECHNICAL APPENDIX III.0

FACiLITY SITE VISIT PROTOCOL OUTLINE AND PROCEDURES

This appendix ineludes an abbreviated version of the facility site visit

protocol, including tha following items:

o The outline of the protocol

o An introduction to the protocol which includes an overview ofthe study and general instructions for the site analyst

o Two cards developed to assist respondents in understanding thepurpose of the study and to aid in formulating responses tospec!fic questions

III. 319

35

PROTOCCC OUTLINE

I. Facility Characteristics

A. Administraiive Characteristics and FundingB. Program OfferingsC. Student PopulationD. Staffing Patterns

II. Facility Experience with SEA Procedures

A. Relationship with SEAB. SEA Funding ProceduresC. Educational StandardsD. SEA Compliance MbnitoringE. Technical Assistance and TrainingF. Program Development and Dissemination

III. Relationship with LEAs, EEUs, and Other State Agencies

A. Local Education AonciesB. INsC. Other State Agencies

IV. Impact of SEA Procedures on Changes in Facility Practice

A. Staffing PatternsF. Staff DevelopmentC. Staff EvaluationD. Program EvaluationE. Adoption of Now Methods and ProgramsF. StLdent TransitionG. Student Interaction with Nowilandicapped PeersH. Parental Involvement

V. SEA Interviews

A. Changes in FacilityB. Formal and Informal Relationships with FacilityC. Efiect of SEA ProceduresD. Lb, IEU, and/or Other State Agency Relationship with Facility

VI. LEA Interviews

A. Changes in FacilityB. Formal and Informal RPlationships with FacilityC. Effect of LEA ProceduresD. SEA and/or Other State Agency Relationship with Facility

III. 320

VII. Other State Agency Interviews

A. Changes in FacilityB. Formal and Informal Relationships with FacilityC. Efftct of Other State Agency ProceduresD. LEA, IEU apd/or SEA Relationship with Facility

III. 321

3,7

FACILITY CASE STUDY PROTOCOL OVERVIEW

Overview

Each site visit lasted approximately two days. About one and one-half

days were spent in discussions with knowledgeable facility staff (e.g.,

principal, education director, in-service coordinator) on topics such as

staffing patterns, staff development, program and itaff evaluat a, adoption

of new methods and programs, student transition planning, student interaction

rith non-handicapped peers, and parental involvement. Approximately one-half

day was spent with State and/or local education agency staff discussing

changes in policies and procedures that may have specifically affected the

case study facility.

Site Anallistlgtkathtslarematuy_IsLIAsilitv Site Visit

Prior to the site visit, the analyst:

o Sent a letter to the facility to confirmthe site visit dates.The confirmation letter also restated the purpose of thevisit, the topics to be covered, and potential respondents.

o Requeted that te facility send information about the schooland its proyams such as an organizational chart, brochures,annual reports etc. for review prior to the site visit.

o Reviewed the State-level case study notes for the State inwkich the facilitywas located, the pilot survey questionnairefor the facility if applicable, and any-background informationsent by the State or facility.

o Rtviewed the clse study protocol and tailored the protocol tothe specific facility and/or State es necessary.

III. 322

Site Analyst Activities Durino the Facility Site Visit

During the first morning of the site visit, the analyst reviewed the

following with the facility administrator:

o The site visit schedole. The 4nalyst confirmed the names andtitles of the persons to be interviewed and the topics withwhich each respondent was familiar.

o Procedures to be used to schedule visits with individuals notidentified prior to the site visit

o Procedures to be used to obtain any relevant documents

After the first day of the site visit, the analyst reviewed the discussion

notes, annotating them as necessary to ensure legibility and completeness and

to identify outstanding issues. The next day's agenda was then reviewed to

ensure that the analyst had identified all the relevant questions for each

respondent.

The analyst conducted i brief exit interview with the facility

administrator to summarize the visit, obtain permission to call back after

the site visit for clarification if necessary, and to express appreciation

for their assistance on the project.

Site Analyst Activities After the Facility Site Visit

Fqllowing the site visit, the analyst:

o Sent thank-you letters to each respondent. Copies of theletters were sent to MPR for the project files.

o Wrote up the site visit notes using the protocol as a guide.

III. 323

369

REFERENCES

Bodner, Joanne Records, Gary M. Clark, and Daryl F. Mellard. PStateGraduation Policies.and Program Practices Related to High School SpecialEducation Programs: A National Study." Lawrence, KS: Department ofSpecial Education, University of Kansas, November 1987.

Farrow, Frank. "Effective State Monitoring Policies (Quality Monitoring andMonitoring of State Operated Programs), A Report of the Handicapped PublicPolicy Analysis Project." Washington, D.C.: The Center for the Study ofSocial Policy, October 1983.

Milne, Ann, Jay Moskowitz, and Fran Ellman. "Sere.ng Special heeds Children:The State Approach." Washington, D.C.: DRC, 1982.

Moore, Mary T., Lisa J. Walker, and Richard P. Holland. Finetuning SpecialEducation Finance: A Aluide for State Policvmakers Education PolicyResearch Institute of Educationll Testing Service, July 1982.

Moore, Mary T., E. William Strang, Myron Schwartz, and Mark Braddock."Patterns in Special Education Service Delivery and Cost." Wash'ngton,D.C.: Decision Resources Corporation, Decealer 1988.

Murphy, Jerome T. "The State Role in Education: Past Research and Fut.:reDirections." Educational Evaluation and Policy Evaluation, vol. 2, no. 4,July-August 1980, pp. 39-51.

National Association of State Directors nf Special Education (NASDSE). "StateEducation Agency Monitoring of the Implementation of EHA-B."Vashington, D.C., Septembnr 1986.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "A Report to Congress onthe Implementation of P.L. 94-142: The Education for All HandicappedChildren Act." Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, 1979.

U.S. Department of Education. "Severr..11 Annual Report to Congress on theImplementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act." Washington,D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabil'tative Services, 1985.

U.S. Department of Education. "Eighth Annual Report to Congress on theImplementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act" Washington,D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Sergic-s, 1986.

U.S. Department of Education. "Ninth Annual Report t;J Congrass on theImplementation of the Education of the Widiapod Act." Washington,D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1987.

111. 325

3 71")

REFERENCES (continued)

U.S. Department of Education. "Tenth Annual Report to Congress on theImplementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act." Washington,D.C.: Office of Special Education and RehabilitativR Services, 1988.

U.S. Department of Education. "Eleventh Annual Report to Congress on theImplementation of the Education o the Handicapped Act." Washington,D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1989.

Weiner, Robert and Maggie Hume. ". . . Anuisimalion for All: Public Policyand Handicapped Children." Alexandria, VA: Capitol Publications,Inc., 1987.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications, 1984.

III. 326

I.

-(4

A

C1ce)

ec 232 198 author stephens, susan a.; and othersdocument resume ed 324 853. ec 232 198 author...

Documents